Sunday, June 24, 2007

Who Will Be The YouTube Of Live Video?

Just read this over at TechCrunch, Who Will Be The YouTube Of Live Video?:
"The growth of Youtube and its subsequent $1.65 billion buyout left behind a bevy of competing video sites. Since then competitors have been seeking to differentiate themselves by focusing on longer videos, higher (bitrate) quality videos, professional content, and paying their users. However, one of the more unique approaches to differentiation has been streaming live video over the internet."
I commented:

I've recently been experimenting with some live video web sites. Live can be an exciting part of video on the web.

Chris Pirillo
is using USTREAM.TV to capture live content and then post 'shows' to video sites like YouTube and He embeds sponsor logos and live text chat in the video. Pretty cool.

I used the other day for the first time and was a LIVE guest in Rome at that Vlog Camp.

Over at Robert Scoble left his channel open and anyone could record a video and post it. Anyone watching could participate without moderation. It was almost real time live video commenting.

I signed up to test Mogulus, which sounds like it will allow adding clips from your PC and the web to the stream. That would be very cool, but sounds like it does not have live chat.

Having a live stream with viewers who can participate with chat and also who can switch in and become the host is real interactive video on the web. Without live it's more static. So if you are looking for true interactivity where the audience actually participates by coming on the show with video or even just chat, live is very exciting.

As soon at TV sees what is going on here, they will jump on this... They just don't understand yet.

MTV might be the first in the US where they had a video wall so viewers could ask questions live with webcams, but I think Canada had this a while ago, and the test I did with Rome was also broadcast on satellite on SkyTV. So they are ahead in that.

The important things about live video on the web are:

1. It's live and participatory vs. recorded and static. It's not really participatory unless the presence of the viewer changes the content of the show.

2. Viewers can host. This gives you true interactivity and gives people a reason to visit at certain times. Appointment viewing is back. Even though those people might just be 10% of the audience, message board history has proved that 80% of people come back to watch the 10% generate content.

3. Live Chat. More interaction to add content to the live show.

4. Connecting with others around the world. World Peace.


  1. Mogulus can technically incorporate other people in a live chat, but they're less "viewers" than "co-hosts" and need to have Mogulus accounts and I think the host has to add or approve them to the list of co-hosts before they can bring them into the live feed. Not sure if you can add someone mid-stream, I haven't had time (or co-hosts) to play with it yet.

  2. With so many in the field and more, I assume, on the way perhaps there will be no monster service provider here. Each service brings something different and interesting to the table. How many of these services can survive with a smaller piece of the pie?

    All need to give us better control of video quality, though. Unless you're a giant head staring at the webcam the quality of the broadcast suffers with lots of movement and high compression settings.

  3. awesome post. i really do think that live adds to the whole experience of a show or series or whatever you'd like to call it. I've also been testing live services, and it's pretty exciting to watch development!

  4. You're starting to understand. :) The biggest hurdle now is sponsorship education!