From The Trenches: The Problem With Live Web Video And How To Set It Free
Guest Author
May 7, 2010

Editor’s note: Michael Seibel is the CEO of Justin.tv, the largest live video site on the Web. In this guest post, he addresses the challenges of live video on the Web and how to set it free (hint: it’s all about mobile).

I spend a lot of time talking about the challenges that live video will face in growing from an intriguing group of startups to an obvious part of the everyday web experience. Nearly everyone assumes that business challenges are what we need to overcome—bandwidth costs, copyright protection, premium content rights or monetization. They are surprised when my answers are product-focused, not business-focused.

Problem 1: Availability. The first evolution of consumer live video creation came in one flavor: broadcast from a computer with a webcam. Unfortunately, the interesting things that happen when you sit in front of your computer screen are few and far between. Being tethered to a computer is the single biggest problem in live video today. People need to be able to create live video from anywhere.

When something interesting is happening in your life, you should be able to grab your cell phone and show anyone else in the world what you’re seeing. Some companies have built apps that do just that, and when iPhone OS 4.0 launches this summer with video API support you’ll see even more. We’ve already seen mobile traction with our own iPhone viewing app. In the first month after it launched it has been downloaded over 1.4 million times, users cumulatively spent over 145 years interacting with the app and it accounted for 20% of our user signups. However, a mobile app isn’t enough because of the second problem . . .

Problem 2: Getting viewers. You need to enable your users to get viewers for their content, which seems like an even simpler problem than the first. It is actually a unique challenge for live video that is far from solved. When you make a 5 minute recorded video clip and upload it to YouTube, you can get viewers over the next day, month, even year. If you get 1,000 views in a week—about six views per hour—you are thrilled. When you broadcast live video for 5 minutes, you have—you guessed it—5 minutes to get as many views as you can. Most live video sites implicitly promise that you will get viewers during those 5 minutes. The truth is that’s really hard, and if your live broadcast doesn’t get any viewers in 5 minutes you’ve just had a terrible experience—probably your last.

There are two approaches to this problem. The first is to promote a new live video to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. That likely means users on the live video site and people in the live video creator’s social graph, including their Facebook friends and Twitter followers. The second approach is to give viewers a great experience when the video they want to watch is no longer live. That means making discovery seamless for viewers, making it obvious what’s live and what’s recorded, and making it clear to creators that viewers can enjoy their video at any time. On Justin.tv, 50% of our video page views don’t have any video because the channel isn’t currently live. It’s nobody’s fault, but everybody loses: the creator misses the opportunity to gain a new viewer, the viewer misses an opportunity to watch something they like, and we miss an opportunity to delight a user. These things should be transparent to the user. They should be able to see what they intended to find, regardless of what’s live or not, with little to no navigation. Think of your televisions’s DVR, but smarter and personalized. They say good artists copy and great artists steal—the live video artists that win will use the best of what we’ve learned from recorded video and build the ideal live and post-live experience.

The live Web video industry is going to have a big 2010 and it’s going to play out on these two stages. Mobile and live go hand-in-hand and there has already been a lot of action in the mobile live video space, but the devices and mobile platforms are at a tipping point. iPhone OS 4.0, the arms race in Android phones and the quickly-maturing Android platform are going to make the mobile live video apps at the end of 2010 look nothing like the ones we saw at the start of 2010.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  • http://twitter.com/peterurban @peterurban

    Very good points. In my experience it doesn't matter to most viewers if a piece of video is live or recorded as long as it isn't about something that is actually occurring right now and that it really matters that it is happening right now (i.e. braking news, witnessing critical events etc.). The other factor where it matters to viewers is when they can interact or play a role in the broadcast (i.e. asking questions, commenting live, chat-room etc.).

    Beyond that it is much more important to the viewer that the content is relevant to what they are looking for (relevant search results, meaningful meta descriptions and tags, good navigation etc.)

    I think educating creators about the opportunities that lie in presenting their content *after* it is streamed and recorded live will be a critical factor to boost the growth in this sector.

  • http://twitter.com/alain94040 @alain94040

    I'm very passionate about live video, but not at all the way Justin.tv sees it. I want a great video chat, in high-definition, with great sound. For that, being in front of my laptop is fine, it doesn't have to be mobile. I don't need an audience, I know who I am calling.

    Some companies like Cisco are working on telepresence, but no one has made it work yet on regular PCs. Why not? This will be a game changer.

  • Idea

    Can anyone tell me why this stupid co. hasnt changed their name to JustIn.tv? I realize the founder's name was Justin….but it seems like with just capitalizing the "I", the name can more accurately reflect the real time nature of their streaming video….

  • Janey

    And unless you're already an a-lister or a smoking hot girl, nobody will care anyway. Sad but true.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.fabb Matthew Fabb

    I'm surprised when talking about live video, there's no mention of the upcoming Flash Player 10.1. Sure, it's not coming to the iPhone, but it's coming to Android in June and will enable people peer-2-peer video. Without having to go through the server but going straight from device to device means it's closer to real-time plus incredibly cheap in bandwidth costs for the server.

  • http://www.myappsfactory.com Rafik

    sorry for slightly shifting away from the subject. In the UK just a couple of years ago there was a lot of effort to promote video calls. I have never seen anyone live making one… I think we are still sometime away when bandwidth and technology available will make most of the forms of mobile video not only technically possible but actually useful

  • JoeA

    It's Flash. And as TechCrunch regularly tells us, Flash was sh*t out by Satan and will rape your baby. Nothing good can come of Flash. Even if there's something really cool in Flash, its evil and wrong simply because its in Flash. End of story. From now on we will ignore Flash, unless we're blaming it for global warming and cancer.

  • http://111.zx9.de/?p=6667 From The Trenches: The Problem With Live Web Video And How To Set It Free | food pyramid fruits and vegetables

    [...] Read more on TechCrunch [...]

  • http://www.mechanosphere.com DigitalPencilPusher

    Live video is a strange beast. I can see the benefits of live streaming for live events like sports or music but most live stuff on justin/ustream etc are pretty mundane and not worth watching. – if its is person to person then Skype is much better. So that kind of leaves live streaming in the realm of the people or companies that own the content. For companies like Justin/ustream they will have to get the content owners on board.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/qthrul qthrul

    CU-SeeMe, iVisit, Yahoo! Live, TinyChat….

    The progression of reflector to peer to peer to web destinations has been interesting to say the least.

    What has to fundamentally change is the nature of how broadband is metered out to the masses. i.e. We have to move from asymmetric service model to more symmetric performance model. This is the only way a Max Headroom audience economy is going to form.

    When was the last time you enjoyed a Ustream or similar video broadcast that didn't make you nostalgic for a buffering Real Player moment from 10 years ago? The networks that support broadcast are ones that cost more than consumers (in the US) are willing to pay for when they are not in use.

    The availability of these networks simply has not filtered down to where a 20 party peer video broadcast among friends is realistic or economical.

    Put in these terms: YouTube video comment replies (or Seesmic if you remember that) are the email like moments before we reach an instant message reality and a multi-party Google Wave style reality.

    We're close — but the broadband has to be in place to allow a far more symmetric experience.

  • http://howtohaha.com/2010/05/from-the-trenches-the-problem-with-live-web-video-and-how-to-set-it-free/ From The Trenches: The Problem With Live Web Video And How To Set It Free | How To HaHa

    [...] Read more on TechCrunch [...]

  • http://1314520.204.at/?p=13562 From The Trenches: The Problem With Live Web Video And How To Set It Free | call hong kong

    [...] Read more on TechCrunch [...]

  • http://twitter.com/GoogNelson @GoogNelson

    Very good points made. Live video is definitely going to be big, but its timetable depends primarily on when mobile broadband will be widely-available, IMO. LTE, WiMAX, come on!

  • http://twitter.com/GoogNelson @GoogNelson

    Very good points made. Live video is definitely going to be big, but its timetable depends primarily on when mobile broadband will be widely-available, IMO. LTE, WiMAX, come on!

blog comments powered by Disqus
Advertisement
Got a tip? Building a startup? Tell us