Joost doesn't need social features

After predicting that 2007 will belong to Joost (formerly The Venice Project) I was beginning to wonder if I'd gotten a little carried away with my enthusiasm. Because some people I know seem less than impressed.

For me it was simple - plenty of great content (I've watched hours of poker!) delivered in (by far) the highest quality streaming video I've ever seen on the net. Granted I fluked it with the content, for most people there's probably not a lot of interest on there, yet.

But now comes news that entertainment giant Viacom is to provide programming and films to Joost. Which explains why my friends got caught in the crossfire of their recent spat with YouTube.

'The terms of the deal between Viacom and Joost were not made public but the service will have "free access to thousands of programmes and channels not readily available on the web".'

And there are also reports that Joost is in talks with British broadcasters ITV and Channel 4. Considering I can't get Channel 4 here that would be a big win from my point of view. Which is why I disagree with Bernie Goldbach regarding the need for a social networking side.

Just because social video propelled YouTube to success doesn't mean it's a requirement for every online video service. YouTube is a 'lean forward' medium. Joost is clearly developing into a 'lean back' medium. They both revolve around video but it doesn't follow that they're in the same market. While I enjoy consuming and sharing social video during the day, mainly via blogs, I usually want to veg out in the evening. So there's more than enough room for both online video mediums.


Technorati Tags: joost, social networking

Comments

[Justin Mason]

'But now comes news that entertainment giant Viacom is to provide programming and films to Joost. Which explains why my friends got caught in the crossfire of their recent spat with YouTube.'

Uh, no, surely that was just caused by Viacom being total asshats?

[Gareth Stack]

Still skeptical..I can't see why content providers would make anything but a tiny handful of premium content available this way, its just not likely to be the highest earning revenue stream (no pun intended) for such content, and will likely be seen as cannibalizing of DVD / HD sales.

Sure, everyone kicks back with a DivX movie from time to time, but is there really a large enough audience willing to watch low cost content on their computer? Again its a question of the other things they could be doing with the same resources. Broadband connected PCs (and you need - by Irish standards - a great connection for Joost) are born ADHD inducers. Although I have the highest regard for the platform itself, I remain to be convinced.

[Mads]

I don't think people will watch on their computers either.

But if you take a look at slingbox, whose product currently sends an individuals television to their laptop anywhere in the world I think you'll find there willbe a wireless gizmo to sling this to youre actual TV in your actual Living room later this year.

WHen that happens, cancel your cable and expect the content owners to ride the wavem, because all hell will break loose!

Plus, these gentlemen own Skype, so how long before we see the ability to talk for free via your telly over the top of your current programme? Watch the superbowl in New York 'with' your old man in LA!!

[Justin Mason]

'Still skeptical..I can't see why content providers would make anything but a tiny handful of premium content available this way, its just not likely to be the highest earning revenue stream (no pun intended) for such content, and will likely be seen as cannibalizing of DVD / HD sales.'

Gareth -- that assumes there is a 100% saturated market, where everyone is already paying to watch the programmes on DVD/HD, so the only way it can go is negative. since in reality many people are not watching the programmes at all, either because they can't, or because they don't want to pay in the current pricing structures available to them, there's a definite opportunity to make money.

on top of this stream of direct payment from the viewer, there's a second level of revenue from indirect channels -- e.g. advertisers will may pay a revenue stream to program makers, allowing the program makers to give away the video for free/cheap to viewers.

basically, it's the whole reason that content providers would bother to allow free access to anything... sometimes giving something away for free can earn you _more_ money than holding on tightly to the crown jewels.

[Gareth Stack]

Justin, I'm not saying that my view is as reductive of that, just that this is the attitude which has been displayed by the media conglomorates in the past in terms of licensing on new platforms. Joost have publically stated that they are not interested in long tail content. I agree with you absolutely as to the value of giving stuff away for promotional purposes, especially in a streaming format. I'm just not convinced big media will see it the same way. I addressed the advertising issue in my article on Joost (http://www.dbspin.com/archives/177).

Mads - Sling media do indeed have a box in the works to do just this, debuted at the recent CES conference. Subscription based content could work this way, provided enough breakout boxes get sold, but its a bit of a chicken and egg, and such a collaboration is not in Joosts stated business plan.