I Don't Get The Venice Project
I can't run The Venice Project software on my macbook, but Andrew gave me a demo of the service yesterday.
The one thing I do like is the desktop app. I am a big fan of web apps, but in this case, I can see a bunch of good reasons why you'd want a desktop app for broadband internet video. You can take over the screen, you can use P2P technologies, you can cache, etc, etc. These guys know how to build desktop apps and they've done a nice job with this one.
But the content is nowhere and I don't see how it gets somewhere. I can't upload anything to it. I can't put an RSS feed into it. I am stuck with whatever content they got licensed to showcase.
Even iTunes, lame as it is, allows you to input an RSS feed into the iTunes client.
These are the guys who built Kazaa? Skype? Disruptors?
Not this time, at least not yet.
This is the begging forgiveness thing all over again.
Video on the Internet is not going to be a one way experience, no matter how much anyone wants it to be.
Same problem here. I just entered the beta test but my MacBook Pro launching Venice Project under Parallels Desktop won't even display an error message. Ahem I'll try it on a PC at the office.
Anyway I must say I agree with you. I'll add that content is KING. So launching with poor content is suicide.
Launching a P2P Media Player in 2007 is good timing, but what's the point if it is not compatible with established P2P protocols such as BitTorrent?
What's the point if Peers can't contribute to the content?
If the point is to save on bandwidth cost, as they chose to go with streaming P2P, I'm afraid the system will fail as soon as they get any hot content or a large audience. Or they need to rack up some heavy server infrastructure and they will simply miss the point.
Posted by: Louis Choquel | January 03, 2007 at 10:51 AM
I respectfully disagree with the premise that internet video is doomed to being a one-way experience. We've completed a healthy innovation session on 'next gen TV' and, IMO, there are many near-term innovations that can take hold to make internet TV a more collaborative, community experience while not throwing away the existing systems and infrastructure. I do agree with you both that there are some fundamental areas that need to be worked out to leverage all systems' abilities in this arena. Clearly Skype was a prime example of riding on top of existing infrastructure in this way.
Enough said, more info to come from us on this one later this year.
Posted by: CoryS | January 03, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I agree Fred. To give people enough reason to switch from TV it has to be open. Licensed walled gardens won't cut it.
That said I wonder if the protracted license negotiations at GooTube, lawsuits at MySpace etc might start to make it difficult to get a big exit in this space unless your legal position is clean
Posted by: Nic Brisbourne | January 03, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Bear in mind that this is an early beta; new features are being added all the time, so (without giving anything specific away) a little patience may pay dividends. :)
Also bear in mind that we're "reinventing TV", not trying to be another YouTube or Democracy Player; if we let anyone upload stuff on a whim we'd be swamped with low-quality rubbish and copyright-violating lawsuit-inviting content, plus the USP (high-quality professionally produced content on demand) would be lost.
If you're registered as a betatester and if there's anything you'd like to see (either specific content, or a new feature) just let us know via the beta-test forum...
Posted by: Mat Hall | January 03, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Veoh already has everything that I have seen in Venice Project. I can watch videos online like in YouTube, and I can download videos to their P2P client (very fast btw). The new version is even remote controllable, so I have it plugged into my TV. While they do have a bunch of copyrighted stuff, they have lots of cool indie stuff as well. Don't see how Venice is going to beat them.
Posted by: Richard Grimes | January 03, 2007 at 03:43 PM
Yup. It feels a little like Deja Vu from my response to your "2007: Broadband Internet Video post." As I said then, I didnt get the venice project then and I still dont. I dont see how it differentiates substantially from other online competitors other than the fact that its from the skype guys. Honestly, even brightcove makes *much* more sense. They have a business model that is open and allows for content owners to monetize in whatever way they see fit. They can deliver high quality streams, etc. Its amazing how much press a brand name entrepreneur can get. But I dont think this venice thing has any compelling unique consumer proposition.
Posted by: hank williams | January 03, 2007 at 04:10 PM
Doesn't TVP kinda violate the "portals are dead" thesis? Why would a content provider e.g. CBS want to position his programs side by side with his competitors' e.g Disney or NBC? The only reason is because TVP offers significant additional distribution. That implies that TVP has gained significant market acceptance. If that's the case then CBS et al will have to pay up. Why should they help TVP while it's still in the crib? I just hope the networks and other big boys don't take a Herodian approach and try to kill all the babies as we are trying to do something similar...and we're still in the crib too.
Posted by: Phoneranger | January 04, 2007 at 09:43 AM
I've been trying it, too, as part of my (doomed) effort to keep up with the various online hosting services (see http://www.beginningwithi.com/vlog/test.html)
I was hoping TVP was going to be an interesting addition to that group, but so far I'm disappointed. As for the content they do have, even if they had more, and more interesting, stuff: I don't want to watch TV on my PC: I want to watch it on my TV!
Posted by: Deirdré Straughan | January 09, 2007 at 06:53 AM