VideoNuze Posts

Nokeena Networks is announcing this morning that it has raised $6.5M from Mayfield Fund, bringing its total funding to $15M. The new funding will be used primarily for marketing and sales. Nokeena's Media Flow Director is a software appliance that combines storage, caching and network optimization to deliver high-quality video at lower cost. I noted Nokeena in my recent post about the robust ecosystem of technology companies enabling higher-quality broadband video delivery.

Today at 1:30pm EDT / 10:30am PDT, I'll be participating in a free webinar, "Demystifying Online Video Syndication." Video syndication continues to be one of the key trends in the online video market. I'll be sharing thoughts on where syndication is heading and where the main opportunities and challenges lie. We have over 500 people registered and it promises to be an exciting and educational session.

The webinar is sponsored by Grab Networks, whose co-president Marcien Jenckes will present information about its grabMediaOS solution that enables a "Create Once, Publish Anywhere" business model. Grab works with hundreds of content providers and is one of the primary players in driving the video syndication market.

If you're trying to understand the syndication opportunity and identify the right solutions to fit your needs, this webinar is for you!

Register now for this free webinar

This morning I listened in on the press conference with Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and Time Warner Inc. CEO Jeff Bewkes where they announced a 5,000 subscriber technical trial of TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online starting in July along with a set of "principles" guiding their efforts. Primarily the trial will test the security of the authentication technology.

TW will make available TNT and TBS programs in the trial, and will offer additional programs over time. Comcast plans to bring in other networks too. Both executives emphatically stated that for cable subscribers there will be no additional charge for online access. The companies clearly hope to use the trial and the publicity that will surround it to galvanize interest from other cable operators and programmers.

The partnership effectively unifies the companies' disparate initiatives so that paying video subscribers will be "authenticated" to receive certain cable network programming online. Up until now Comcast has been pursuing its own vision of online access under a plan it dubbed "OnDemand Online," while TW has been pursuing a plan it called "TV Everywhere." The essential difference between the two, as I wrote about here, was that Comcast planned to only make programs available on its owned sites (at least initially), which TW talked of multiple third parties gaining access as well, right off the bat.

I've been critical of TW's approach to date as I thought it was wildly ambitious and under-estimated the technical challenges involved in pulling off third party integration. On the other hand, Comcast's walk-before-you-run attitude seemed far more practical. On the call, Mr. Bewkes in particular continued to downplay the difficulty of authenticating third parties, a position I think is unrealistic.

Regardless, I've been supportive of the general idea that paying video subscribers gain online access to cable programs. While some decry this as antithetical to the open, free-flowing Internet ethos, and a plot by evil cable companies to control video on the 'net, I've seen it differently.

The key is finding a model that's attractive to cable programmers (e.g. MTV, USA, CNN, etc) and consumers. Programmers benefit because they'd be provided with a viable online extension of their proven hybrid (monthly affiliate fee + advertising) business model. Until now they've been largely shut out of online distribution. That's because doing so for free would antagonize their cable/satellite/telco distributors who pay them around $25B/year. And that's before the point that free, ad-supported premium sites like Hulu have not yet proven themselves economically viable. Meanwhile, aside from a la carte paid download sites like iTunes/Unbox/others there hasn't been an online subscription model available to programmers.

These are some of the real, but often not well-understood business issues. Everyone wants something-for-nothing, and the Internet has too often set those expectations. But cable programmers need to get paid for their efforts so they can continue to deliver the quality programming consumers have grown accustomed to. The newspaper industry's woes offer tangible proof of what happens to an industry when its proven business model gets stripped away.

Despite what some skeptics say, consumers also stand to gain. All that great cable programming that's been locked to the set-top box in the home would now be available online. It sort of like cable's version of on demand Sling, but without any upfront or monthly charge (at least that's what we're hearing for now).

With TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online, Comcast and Time Warner are taking a solid step forward in delivering more value to their subscribers who increasingly live their lives online. Now they need to tamp down the hype and just focus on executing in a logical, user-friendly way.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Netflix and its CEO Reed Hastings are profiled in today's WSJ ("Netflix Boss Plots Life After the DVD"). Hastings offers a frank assessment of the where the DVD business stands, suggesting that as soon as four years from now DVDs-by-mail will start to decline. He notes however that DVDs will still be around in 20 years.

The article underscores Netflix's challenges in obtaining Hollywood movies for its Watch Instantly service. This is no surprise given the strict "windowing" business model Hollywood employs, along with its desire to preserve its DVD revenues as long as possible. In fact, last November, in this post, I acknowledged this as an obstacle unlikely to be resolved any time soon, and instead recommended that Netflix beef up its network TV offerings. Doing so would have a lot of upside as a high-quality VOD service that would generate immediate revenues for broadcasters.

The article also explores Netflix's aborted effort to build its own set-top box for its subscribers to receive streaming video. Hastings admits that he "fell in love with building boxes" in an attempt to emulate Apple's hardware-content delivery model. Eventually logic prevailed and practically on the eve of the box's launch Netflix pulled the plug and spun the project off to Roku, in which it made a $6M investment. While it was confusing to outsiders, it was the right move. Going into the box business seems like it would have been an example of "undisciplined pursuit of more," the second stage of the framework Jim Collins outlines in his new book, "How the Mighty Fall."

Netflix has an interesting road ahead of it, as it tries to transform itself from a hugely successful DVD rent-by mail company to an online deliverer of digital media. Hastings sizes up Netflix's odds saying "Almost no companies succeed at what we're doing." Despite his sobering tone, it's encouraging that he understands the significance of the challenges ahead. The question I continue to have is whether Netflix will ultimately tackle these challenges independently or as part of a larger entity (VideoNuze readers will recall my final prediction for 2009 - that Microsoft will acquire Netflix). One way or another Netflix is going to be a key player for some time to come.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Brightcove and Qik are announcing a partnership this morning that further fuses the broadband and mobile video worlds. Under the partnership Qik users will be able to distribute their mobile-recorded video through Brightcove players if they have a Brightcove account. For Brightcove customers the deal will enables mobile recording as a new source of video into their catalogs.

Qik's client is one of a number of options for mobile video recording and uploading. As I wrote yesterday regarding the iPhone's new video recording capabilities, mobile video capture (and eventually full-featured editing) is poised to become a big activity, implying that few spontaneous significant live events will go unrecorded. We will see additional partnerships like Qik-Brightcove as mobile recording becomes a key source for content providers distributing video over both broadband and mobile.

After reading many different reviews over the weekend of the just-released iPhone 3G S, it's hard not to conclude that this device is going to be a serious catalyst for mobile video recording and consumption. Since I don't have an iPhone 3G S myself (I'm a Verizon subscriber), I've been relating to the iPhone phenomenon through friends and from what I've read.

Specifically, the iPhone 3G S is poised to push user-generated video content to a new level, as Daisy first explained on our podcast a week and a half ago. That's because, as reviews at TechCrunch, Business Insider and others have pointed out, the iPhone 3G S dramatically improves the convenience of the mobile video experience that Flip and other video cameras have pioneered. Certainly the biggest benefit is that iPhone 3G S owners will effectively have a low-end Flip in their pockets at all times, meaning they're ready to shoot video whenever they want, not just when they remembered to bring along their video camera.

I can relate to this because about 6 months ago I bought a Creative VadoHD video camera (basically a cheaper, somewhat more powerful version of the Flip MinoHD). It's a nifty little device, except for weak zoom and a lousy mic. But the big problem is that I never seem to have it with me at the spontaneous moment I want to shoot video. In other words, like my digital camera, it hasn't broken into the keys/wallet/cell phone must-have-when-leaving-the-house checklist. Nor do I expect it ever will.

To the contrary, iPhone 3G S owners will become conditioned to always having video capability with them. And because the iPhone 3G S is a connected device (unlike Flip, Vado or others), you can upload your videos immediately, to YouTube, of course (and with YouTube's AutoShare feature those videos can now be distributed to Facebook and Twitter as well). The iPhone 3G S comes with video editing on the device, allowing you to instantly share just what you want. Simply put, having robust video recording and editing subsumed into a cell phone/smartphone is huge.

Of course the iPhone 3G S isn't perfect, nor is it for everyone. The biggest hurdle is that you need to be an AT&T subscriber, which rules out a big chunk of the market, unless you're ready to switch. iPhone 3G S video is SD-only for now vs. widespread HD-quality on Flips and others (though that will no doubt change soon enough). Actual battery life is still uncertain, and I for one continue to wonder how willing people will be to risk draining their batteries shooting and watching video.

Still the iPhone 3G S brings us closer to a world where no significant spontaneous event will ever go unrecorded. Things like emergency airplane landings and instances of police brutality will have a much higher chance of being captured in the future. That makes me think about what role iPhone 3G S and other video-enabled smartphone users can have in the traditional news gathering process? How can they tap into this energy to reinvent their own models? We've already seen the success CNN is having with its iReports. What's next, as news gatherers evolve to the instantaneous mobile video world?

The iPhone continues to set the bar in mobile video. But with other smartphones from Palm, Blackberry and Google being introduced, there is much more innovation still ahead. For sure we are moving into an era when mobile recording and playback is going to become commonplace.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Below is the 21st edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for June 19, 2009.

Daisy discusses highlights from the OMMA Video conference that she organized in NYC this week. Daisy recaps the keynote from Eileen Naughton, Google's director of media platforms in which she said that child YouTube sensation "Fred" is pulling down a six-figure income. She also reviews comments by Andy Markovitz, Kraft's digital marketing and media director who recommended the online video ad industry needs more scale, better targeting and more format choices. Those sentiments were echoed by other speakers. Daisy has more details here.

This week I discuss my post from yesterday, "Does It Actually Matter How Much Money YouTube is Losing?" I recognize I took a somewhat contrarian standpoint here, and admit it feels a bit irresponsible to suggest that YouTube's losses don't matter much (except to Google of course). It's always been great sport to debate how much money YouTube is losing. But the fact is, as long as Google has the financial wherewithal to sustain YouTube's losses (whatever they actually are), and deems the site strategic in the long run (which I strongly believe it is), then the size of its losses is really pretty much irrelevant. I know lots of you disagree with my assessment; feel free to post a comment and explain why!

Click here to listen to the podcast (15 minutes, 40 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

Guestimating how much money YouTube loses has been heavily debated since the company first burst on the scene. And even though YouTube has been part of Google for close to three years now, there are no signs the debate is letting up.

For example, this past April, Credit Suisse analyst Spencer Wang got a lot of attention asserting YouTube might lose $470M in 2009. Using these numbers, Fliqz CEO Benjamin Wayne generated a lot of buzz for his Business Insider post "YouTube is Doomed." Then earlier this week, in a much-noticed white paper, the IT outsourcing firm RampRate said the company's annual loss is closer to $174M, given a more accurate analysis of YouTube's true bandwidth costs.

No doubt the debate will continue to rage on. But does it really matter how much money YouTube is losing? I'd argue the answer is mainly no, with two caveats: first, that Google has the financial wherewithal to sustain YouTube's losses (whatever they may be), and second, that Google believes in YouTube's long-term strategic value.

With respect to Google's financial wherewithal, I think it's pretty much indisputable that Google can afford YouTube's losses, even if they exceeded Credit Suisse's estimate. In 2008 Google generated almost $8B in cash flow from operations, 36% more than in 2007. It currently has over $17B in cash. Its stock has bounced back from its $257/share low in the dark days of Dec. '08 to $415/share as of yesterday, translating to a market cap of over $130 billion and a P/E just north of 30. To be sure, Google is still a one-trick pony, relying on advertising alone to power its business model. But that pony has proven itself durable in the down economy and in the face of competitors, and the market has justifiably rewarded Google. If anyone thinks Google is being penalized for YouTube's estimated losses, I ask, where's the evidence?

Google's financial prowess gives it license to do what very few public companies are able to do: focus on the long-term. And that brings us to the second caveat, Google's belief in YouTube's long-term strategic value. Of course, none of us is privy to exactly what Google's executives believe on this front, but for my part, there's ample reason Google should be bullish, notwithstanding YouTube's current financial challenges.

First, and most important, YouTube maintains a dominant 40%+ share of online video viewership month in and month out, according to comScore. As I said in this recent post, YouTube has the best-known brand-name, deepest catalog, and best promotional reach of any online video site. In UGC it is in a rare "winner-take-all" position (even deep-pocketed Microsoft this week threw in the towel on Soapbox, its YouTube competitor). It would be unthinkable for anyone looking to upload video to not upload to YouTube, which is why the site gets an incredible 20 hours of video uploaded every minute.

What are these all worth in a market growing as fast as online video, where significant business model disruption lies ahead? A lot. YouTube would be the first partner of choice for any number of consumer and technology heavyweights now starting to slug it out for market share in the broadband era. Meanwhile, YouTube is well-entrenched in the cultural zeitgeist. It is the go to resource for presidential candidates, community organizers and lately, Iranian election protesters.

Sure, YouTube has its challenges. Hulu is crowding it out for access to premium content. UGC is a monetization drag (though a significant traffic driver). It doesn't have a bona fide or clearly articulated convergence strategy, as its recent YouTube XL initiative underscored. And it hasn't settled on an ad format that works. Regardless, YouTube has massive long-term strategic value. As long as Google recognizes this and has the financials to support it, then even in these recessionary times, how much money YouTube loses is largely irrelevant.

What do you think? Post a comment now.