Enough With The Live Video Streaming News
Argh! It's another press release promoting another new application and service for your pocket computer. Many years ago the joke was, that of the ten thousand Palm OS applications available, six thousand of them were on-screen digital clocks - the more advanced ones had an alarm feature as well... Reading about yet another 'innovative product connecting your mobile phone's video to the web' might have pushed me over the edge.
I'm speaking here specifically of the fast growing field of streaming live video from your handset, and the proliferation of Web 2.0 services that have raised a dump-truck of money (just before the current fiscal fun) and are now looking to get as many users as possible (users = page views = advertising revenue = a possibility of making a profit a few years down the line). So why am I a bit upset?
Because of the sheer volume of services and applications in this space, there isn't a huge amount of room for innovation in the core product. You switch on the application, you point the camera at what you want to see, you connect over Wi-Fi or 3g (and hope you have unlimited data) and your profile page on the web site shows the video.
This is how Qik does it. This is how Flixwagon does it. That's how Bambuser, StickAm, KyteTV and countless others do it - because it's the obvious way to do it. Yes there are some bonuses on each service that give a nice bullet point on why that site is better than all the others (upload already recorded videos, geo-tag your location, etc) but fundamentally the video streaming service has moved from experimental technology to an almost commodity-like service.


The services can't compete with each other on cost, given that these services are free to end users; they can't compete on quality of the finished product, compression technology for video is very much standard (besides, your coverage is a much bigger influence than any other factor); neither can they compete on being 'first to market' or being a unique product.
It all comes down to marketing, and that's where those press releases come in. The service that can capture the hearts and minds of users, that has the emotional attachment, is likely to have the easier route to success. That's why they make a lot of effort in getting 'names' to use their service, that's why companies were loaning out N95's preloaded with their software earlier this year to prominent bloggers, and I suspect that's why they seem to send out a lot of press releases and shout very loudly when the slightest tweak of code happens on their service.
So no more, I say. I'm drawing a line in the sand. That video streaming services work is in doubt. That they are all very similar is not in dispute. It's just that I've had enough of them. The space is crowded enough, the existing players feel like identikit companies, and new entrants are doing exactly the same as the originals. There's no difference.
Come along with something as new and as innovative as the basic concept was, and I'll be there with the news posts and the reviews. For now, I think that I'll be keeping a careful eye on the streamers, continue to use these tools in my day to day life when it makes sense, but I'm not going to look at the same product over and over again and come to the same conclusion.
[So, err... Ewan.... I guess this means that your review of Bambuser is off then?.... - Ed] [FX: Ewan clims into a Laundry Basket]
-- Ewan Spence, Oct 2008
Published by Ewan Spence at 13:09 UTC, October 15th
Categories: Developer, Editorial Thoughts
Platforms: General
News Discussion
A service that I think actually would be used would be iplayer, itv player, channel 4 player on devices, with download capability.
3G is a massive battery hog, and if the idea is that we use these services at home on wifi, then i'll use my laptop or PC thanks very much.
Now, Nokia has high quality video capture hardware in its Nseries models. We've already seen a couple major music videos filmed using Nokia phones. Given the proper editing tools, which Nokia unexplicably removed last year, it'd be a filmmaker's dream.
We've seen the progression from chat to webcams to webisodes and phone movies. Putting the power of creating your own cable channel of user created content in users hands is an idea they should expand on. If YouTube submissions were watched on a pay to see basis, you'd realize the potential. Right now, YouTube and others own users content and get all the monetization from it. These services open the door to take it back and return it to the content creators.
Photos yes, video no.
In the same way that video calling on landlines first and secondly on mobiles hasn't taken off, I can't see that this will either.
Sure it's certainly more accessible than ever before due to camera phones being the norm, but I don't think there is actually much market traction for regular users to create videos.
As far as I understand, youtube generates no income (and I believe that hardly any one would bother if you had to pay.)
Live feed of my children on their birthday (my children's grandparents live in North America, but I am in China)
I WILL use live video feeds to scare people...like police who mess with me, or customers who ask for bribes.
And well...there is always live streaming porn from the bathroom of your local wifi-enabled coffee shop for the ambitious pervert. I'm absolutely sure that live outdoor public porn will take off with these services.
Right now, people are just getting used to the idea of video from the phone. There is going to be more and more of it soon though.
Main Navigation
|
» Home (1) » News (2) » Reviews (3) |
» Features (4) » Media (5) » Forums M | Full (6) » Top (9) |
Advert
no links availablemobile.allaboutsymbian.com