Voddler, Inc., the company behind the new service, was formed back in 2005 and has offices in Stockholm, Palo Alto, and Beijing. It’s thought to have taken around $16 million worth of funding from investors including Deseven Capital, Freja Ventures and Lotsa SA.

Right now the service, which offers add-supported streaming of movies and TV shows as well as premium paid-for content, is only available in a closed beta in the company’s home country. However, perhaps now that more content has been secured, Voddler is beginning to open up.

An additional 500,000 users were recently given access through a partnership with Swedish broadband provider Bredbandsbolaget, and the 250,000 people currently on the waiting should be given access soon. Furthermore, expansion to other Nordic countries is planned in 2010, with the UK also on Voddler’s radar.

The Spotify for movies comparison certainly isn’t doing Voddler any harm in terms of mind share and there are some similarities. Both herald from Sweden, offer ad-supported and on-demand content – Voddler is also being talked up as potentially becoming the Hulu for Europe – and both require a client download rather than being browser-based.

However, a more apt and less flattering comparison might be the largely defunct Joost or another European video startup, Babelgum. Both services have struggled to secure enough compelling mainstream content and, in hindsight, forcing users to download a desktop app would seem to have been a mistake. A big one.

It maybe that Voddler can get its hands on the right content and in a timely enough manner (the signs are good with a number of same-day exclusives already taking place) but, if it’s to follow Spotify’s path, it also needs to get the service into the places where people want to consume the type of content being offered. That means taking Voddler beyond the PC into the living room and mobile. On that note, the company has talked about eventually offering its own set-top box.

Next.TV has plans for a desktop version for non HP users as well.

Rex Wong, the former CEO of Applied Semantics (later Google Adsense), is the CEO of Dave Networks. Wong previously expressed a desire to do for video what AdSense did for text. Last April, Rex Wong said, “We will be using the same technology used by Homeland Security to monitor [telephone] chatter. Audio keywording will allow us to contextually figure out where to sell ads and to place more than just pre- and post-roll ads.” He planed to launch the contextual video advertising service on their YouTube competitor, Dave.TV.

While Next.tv’s distribution deal through HP gives them a good head start, they’re going up an increasingly crowded marketplace. Joost, Babelgum, Veoh, British Telecom, Zattoo, and Vuze are amongst the competition. Scoring the best content deals will likely determine who makes IPTV work.

Yet while the market and pedigree may be similar, the execution in each case differs.

Content

The most noticeable difference between the two has been between the content each is streaming. Joost had the fortune of early hype and pulling together some big content deals from Viacom, CNN, Sony, and the NHL. They also have the benefit of some large media companies, CBS and Viacom, as investors. Similar to when Joost first launched, Babelgum currently streams more generic content from providers like the AP and National Geographic. The latest content deal of note has been Spike Lee screening some of his movie footage on the network.

Interface

Both applications have the same core functionality, allowing you to create your own personalized channel guide. Although, while both applications stream to your desktop, Joost allows you to skip forward and back, while Babelgum plays serially. The larger differences come in the social aspects of the program, of which Babelgum has none as of yet. Joost, however, uses a toolbox of widgets for things like chat rooms and bulletin boards.

The Babelgum interface is similar to Joost, but more complicated. Little things like not being able to double click on a clip to play it are annoying. Play back quality is reasonable; I experienced no buffering or choppiness in playback. Like Joost, playing a clip at full screen on a 22″ monitor doesn’t deliver good picture quality. If content is the driver in TVIP platform adoption, Babelgum won’t be going far. The content selection is nearly as poor as the navigation options; why have tags for videos if you can’t click on them?

Overall

Overall Babelgum feels like a poor man’s Joost. Competition in any field drives innovation and is good for the consumer, yet for Babelgum 2006 is calling and it wants its innovations back; writing on your front page that “Babelgum is a new way of conceiving television” when it is at best following Joost

See our Joost and Babelgum company profiles.

Babelgum:


Joost:

The link above takes you to a press invitation page, but it was supplied by the company along with a message that they have launched publicly.