

Michael Seibel: The Problem With Live Web Video And How To Set It Free - evansolomon
http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/07/trenches-live-video/

======
oldgregg
This is not the real problem. The bigger issue is that youtube videos are
EDITED. People put hours into editing a single clip to make it palatable. Even
if you DO catch a live stream the signal/noise is usually unbearable. No
amount of technology will fix this.

For personal video sharing flip/iphone is perfectly fine. I have no interest
in watching video of my baby nephew live-- let mom pick the best videos and
I'll watch them when I have time.

From there you jump to commercially produced live content. I'm still amazed I
can't stream live broadcast TV, but that's only a matter of time.

The real question: is there a middle ground? Will there be semi-professional
producers who can create compelling live content that people actually want to
watch? I'm very skeptical.

Mass media shows us images of people living fantasy lives. But it's completely
artificial. The truth is that our lives feel very boring because we consume so
much sexed-up mass media. Question: how many celebrities do you see life
streaming? None. Why? Because they don't want to ruin the artificial mystique
they have created.

Consider "The Real World" -- the only way they get people to watch is by
editing in into something very UNREAL. What is troubling is how many people
then feel compelled to create artificial drama in their life just to feel like
their life has meaning. But that's neither here not there.

~~~
kd5bjo
You could have asked the same question about prerecorded video several years
ago, and come to the same conclusions. You had professionally produced and
edited shows, and you had home movies; there wasn't much in between.

There are definitely amateur/semi-pro live video producers that are producing
content that people want to watch. There are several of our broadcasters that
regularly have 150+ viewers; I assume that they're doing something that people
actually like.

------
jacquesm
I've been doing live video for over a decade and getting viewers never was the
problem.

The biggest stumbling block for a long time was simply that you needed a piece
of hardware, initially those were video capture cards hooked up to regular
cameras.

Connectix with their 'quickcam' changed the world, and after being bought by
Logitech they plastered the world with cheap cameras, USB made it fast and
work more or less out of the box (initially we were busy more with supporting
out users to get their hardware to work than anything else).

Integrated webcams were the next step, and nowadays it is probably harder to
find a laptop without one than with, which leads to all kinds of funny issues
for companies that have a 'no webcams' policy on their premises.

Mobile, the final frontier of live video is mostly hindered by the telcos and
the phone manufacturers, using video formats that require real time
transcoding before you can send them to a browser with a customized stream
matching the speed of the consumer.

------
hkuo
He mentions the importance of the post-live experience, as well as, of course,
the actual live broadcast, but he fails to mention whatsoever the importance
of the pre-live experience. The build-up, the marketing, the getting-the-
message-out that a live show or event will be happening.

It's silly to think one can just flip on their camera and expect users to
suddenly start appearing. It would be plain common sense to let people know
beforehand that your show or event will be happening. Duh?

One other thing that makes a live cast successful is a regularly broadcast
format such as Mixergy, where users know when to expect the next live
broadcast, whether it is daily, weekly, or monthly, or where one can check a
schedule of upcoming events and add it to their calendar.

------
greg
Michael makes the excellent point that a truly live, synchronous experience is
very hard to do on the web. It would be valuable to study how people "sync up"
in the real-world so they can all share the same experience at the same time.

------
mikeryan
Honestly the getting viewers issue seems to be fairly straightforward and was
solved by traditional broadcast a long time ago. When they wanted people to
tune into a live broadcast they _scheduled it at a particular time_ then
marketed this time.

~~~
evansolomon
Do you think that's really the right solution for content creators that aren't
TV studios? You could say that the static video distribution model was solved
a long time ago too--release the video as a real time experience (a movie),
choose an arbitrary waiting period and advertise a lot, then release the video
(VHS, DVD). Of course, that's not at all the way anyone on YouTube distributes
their video, so the old "solved" model doesn't always work best.

To be clear, I completely agree that TV studios figured out how to get people
to watch live content very well. But I disagree that that's applicable to
potentially millions of simultaneous individual broadcasters.

~~~
mikeryan
I absolutely believe that this is the right solution for content creators that
aren't TV Studios - in fact its easier for them, live broadcast is painful and
ugly for studios.

I'm not sure why its not applicable, please explain. In fact I think
Justin.tv's role could/should be one of facilitating this process? Why not a
Justin.tv Guide?

The biggest downside of live video content on the web (and this can't be
resolved) is that one thing the web brings is a global reach, and you're not
going to be able to adequately serve a global audience with live video.

