Posts for 'Technology'

This morning thePlatform is rolling out its latest Player Development Kit (PDK) which offers its media customers the option of turning on a series of video sharing/social media features for their users. Marty Roberts, thePlatform's VP of Marketing, gave me a demo last week. One of my key reactions is that interest in the PDK by thePlatform's customers shows how much media companies' executives' mindsets have evolved in a very short time.

With the player enhancements, users are able to embed video into ten of the most popular social networks: Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Digg, Reddit, Stumble Upon, Delicious, Windows Live, Yahoo! Buzz and Vodpod. All are pre-integrated by thePlatform so just a couple of clicks by the user places the video player, complete with its original branding, into these 3rd party sites. All of the advertising logic flows through to wherever the player is distributed, so ads run according to the same rules as they would on the destination site. All of the views are reported in the admin console, including detail on where the videos played.

An additional feature is the ability for users to clip a specific segment out of the underlying video and embed just that segment into these social networks. That means that users no longer have to say to their friends something like "check out the joke approximately 45 seconds into the attached 3 minute clip;" instead they can embed a new segment with just the joke itself. thePlatform has also handily integrated URL shortening, so embedding in Twitter is a snap. It also exposes hash tags in the meta data which are automatically added to the tweet.

Marty explained that thePlatform's customers, recognizing their users' interest in sharing clips, have pushed for these new social features. That's a pretty remarkable evolution in thinking by big media companies, which not that long ago were focused both on driving users only to their own destination sites for online viewing and also on bearing 100% of the promotional responsibility for doing so. By advocating for these new social/sharing features these companies are recognizing that online viewing should happen wherever users decide to hang out (this is the premise of the Syndicated Video Economy I've discussed many times) and that users themselves should be considered a critical ingredient in promoting content.

Gone too appears to be traditional concerns about the environment in which branded video would show up. I can't count how many times over the years I've heard content executives express worry about having their brands and programming end up in semi-pornographic or amateurish user-created sites. I asked Marty about this evolution in thinking and he said that even some of thePlatform's most conservative customers now seem to be over this perceived problem. Looks like Dylan was right, "The times, they are a-changin.'"

Panache has unveiled Ad Flow, a new work flow tool for online video ads intended to streamline the process for publishers adding and approving new video campaigns. I got a short demo of Ad Flow from the Panache team and it looked intuitive and thorough.

According to Panache's EVP Cheryl Kellond, who was formerly a VP of Advertising at Yahoo, ordinarily this process is very manual and is based on home-brewed work flow tools which can result in a lot of emails back and forth among the publisher's team members. The result is that it can take up to 6 weeks and end up costing 25-40% of the value of the campaign with all the personnel time involved. With these delays, Cheryl said Yahoo sometimes had to turn business away because they couldn't process the ads quickly enough.

Though I've never personally been involved in this type of process at a major publisher, I have a glimpse into how complicated it must be from my own experience with VideoNuze's ads. First I receive sponsors' creative which was to have been developed according to published specs. Then I load the ads into my ad system and test them along a number of different dimensions. For one reason or another, frequently there are 1-2 rounds of revisions before they finally go live.

Even for a relatively simple site like VideoNuze which accepts Flash ads, though not video ads, there are a number of things that can cause deviations, resulting in delays for the campaign's start date. Mind you I'm not complaining, I've just come to understand that all of this is part of being in an ad-supported business.

With Ad Flow, the publisher's ad sales, ad product strategy, operations and creative teams can all monitor the step-by-step progress of new campaigns from initially being loaded through testing and to final approval. Rather than using email to monitor progress, everyone gets access to the tool for their specific tasks. Importantly, testing can be in the publisher's video player offline, which has been hard in the past. Ad Flow is another element in online video's foundation which will reduce the friction involved in getting ads live so that more TV ad budgets can be shifted to online video.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required)

Undoubtedly we've all had the experience at one time or another of watching (or trying to watch) a particular online video, only to have some problem arise that interrupts our experience. To the average user, it's a mystery what might have happened. Is it a problem with my computer? With my personal Internet connection? With my Internet service provider? With the source of the content?

Regardless, it causes user frustration, which can lead to clicking away from the video, possibly never to return. More often than not, the content provider isn't even aware of these user problems. As online video becomes more central to content providers' strategies and P&Ls, inferior user experiences are a growing concern for content providers. And given the vagaries of the Internet and the exploding volume of video being consumed, it's an issue unlikely to go away anytime soon.

That's where Conviva comes in. Conviva gives content providers unprecedented insight into their users' viewing behaviors as well as tools to quickly identify and resolve problems. As Darren Feher, Conviva's new CEO explained to me when I met up with him recently, and in a subsequent demo, the company's studies show that at least 25% of all streams suffer one problem or another. Affected users watch between 30-80% less video than those who don't have problems.

Here's how Conviva works: a small bit of its code is integrated by the content provider alongside the Flash or Silverlight player, whichever is used (in either case no user download involved). Conviva is also integrating with online video platforms (so far just thePlatform, but others to come), so the step is eliminated for the content provider. When deployed, Conviva's code monitors the user's video experience and sends back "heartbeat" reports every 10 seconds to the Conviva console. The console gives the content provider multiple views of their users' experiences, including things like a geographic distribution of current viewing, what player's being used, the average time it's taking to start streaming, the average duration of viewing, the amount of buffering, and so on. Conviva shares the science behind all of this if you're so inclined.

Conviva's secret sauce is mashing up all that in-bound data in real-time and detecting if/where problems exist, and when they do, what the source is. Problems could include buffering on the user's machine, issues with the currently-used CDN, congestion in the local ISP, etc. In addition to these telemetry/analytics services, the company also offers a service it calls "Conviva Distribution" which will seek to remedy problems as they arise based on a set of pre-configured policies. For example, if the user's machine is buffering, Conviva will adjust the stream being sent to a lower bit rate. Or if the CDN being used is the problem, Conviva will switch to another CDN (of the content provider's choosing) in mid-stream, unbeknownst to the user. The content provider gets real-time visibility into what troubleshooting is happening.

In addition to improving the user experience, Darren believes this degree of insight opens up new opportunities for content providers. For example, say there's a higher value set of streams, maybe for a subscription service or a live event. Those streams can be tagged and monitored separately, and have greater resources allocated to them to ensure up-time. Improved visibility into videos that are going viral means their placement on the site and their monetization can be enhanced. Another example is better-informed customer service agents responding to issues specific to a certain set of videos.

Some of what Conviva does is similar to analytics products like Omniture, performance measurement from companies like Keynote and Gomez and some of the reporting CDNs themselves provide to customers. But Conviva seems to bring together user viewing data in a unique and far deeper way than any of these. This week Conviva is helping NBC better understand its Olympics streaming using Silverlight. Conviva also counts Fox, ABC, NFL and others as customers. Conviva started life as Rinera Networks, pursing managed P2P distribution. It has raised $29 million to date from UV Partners, New Enterprise Associates and Foundation Capital.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

As the biggest annual mobile conference - the Mobile World Congress - gets underway today in Barcelona, new initiatives from some of the biggest names in technology underscore the growing importance of smartphones and of mobile video specifically. Among the most important headlines:

- Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer is unveiling Windows Phone 7 which includes Xbox LIVE games, Zune video and audio, plus enhanced sharing. With Phone 7 Microsoft is continuing to vie for position in a crowded smartphone operating system landscape.

- Sony Ericsson is launching "Creations" allowing users to create and publish video, audio and images from their mobile phones in collaboration with professional developers.

- AT&T and 11 other mobile service providers, which together have about 2 billion subscribers, are introducing a new applications store designed to appeal to developers and compete head-on with Apple's App Store.

- Symbian is taking the wraps off its new Symbian 3 open source release, which includes support for HDMI, so that users can connect their Symbian phones to their TVs and watch 1080p video, in effect creating a Blu-ray player in your pocket.

- Intel and Nokia are merging their respective Moblin and Maemo software platforms to create MeeGo, a unified Linux platform to run across multiple devices.

- Adobe is providing an update that by mid-2010, its AIR runtime for building rich applications will be available for Android and that Flash 10.1 will be generally available for various mobile platforms, including Android. In addition, Adobe is announcing that Omniture, which Adobe recently acquired, will add mobile video measurement within its SiteCatalyst product.

While each announcement, plus countless others, have their own significance in the burgeoning mobile ecosystem, the one that's most relevant to mobile video specifically is the coming availability of Flash 10.1, especially for Android. Mobile video has been hampered to date with the lack of Flash player support on iPhones, so its pending launch on Android phones threatens to scramble the relative appeal of these devices for users eager to watch video from sites like Hulu on their smartphones.

Late last week I got a glimpse of how significant Flash on smartphones is from Jeff Whatcott, SVP of Marketing at Brightcove, which today is announcing an optimized version of its platform for Flash 10.1, to be released in the middle of 2010. Adobe has made the beta of Flash 10.1 available to content providers, and Jeff has a video showing how it works with Brightcove for its customers like NYTimes.com and The Weinstein Company.

Brightcove has done 3 things - optimized its template for mobile devices (so navigation and interactivity is seamless on the small screen), enabled auto-detect of mobile devices (so the correct Brightcove template is served) and leveraged cloud-based transcoding (so a mobile-ready H.264 encoded video is streamed). The goal is for Brightcove's customers to be able to deliver an optimized mobile and Flash experience identical to their online experiences, with minimal additional work flow. Brightcove provides the appropriate logic for mobile templates to its customers which they embed in their pages. When a user visits from a mobile device and clicks to watch video, the right Brightcove-powered experience is delivered.

All of the above activity is happening in the shadow of the now-dominant iPhone (and coming release of the iPad) which do not support Flash. As non-iPhone devices - and content providers - progressively incorporate Flash this year, it seems like the smartphone market is poised for another new turn. Flash is the dominant video player and as users look to replicate their online experiences on their smartphones, the void of Flash on iPhones will become even more pronounced. I don't underestimate Steve Jobs or Apple's ability to compete, but this will be one place where it feels like the iPhone will be at a real disadvantage. Apple is keen to prevent Flash from extending its online hegemony to mobile as well, so it will be interesting to see how it chooses to play this.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

I hope for Google's sake that it understands the cost to build its 1 gigabit/second ultra high-speed fiber network experiment announced today could be $750 million or more. Even for Google that's a very big number, especially considering the company has said it has no intention of actually pursuing this as a business. Of course, we don't know exactly what Google is forecasting its project costs to be, but using Verizon's FiOS numbers wouldn't be a bad starting point to do the math. So here goes.

Google said it would offer the gigabit service to between 50,000 and 500,000 people. Let's start at the high end of that range. Verizon has disclosed that it will spend $18 billion to pass approximately 18 million homes in its footprint with its FiOS fiber-to-the-home network. It's not fair to do a straight average and assume that Verizon is still paying $1,000/home passed given that its costs have no doubt declined over the years. However, in Google's case, since it has approximately zero experience laying fiber in neighborhoods, and won't get the same level of vendor discounts that Verizon enjoys, it is probably fair to assume Google will spend at least $1,000 per home passed. So if it goes all the way to 500,000 homes, that's $500 million in neighborhood build-out costs.

But that's only to wire the neighborhoods, then the service has to be deployed in the homes themselves. That means in-home wiring, on-premise equipment, labor, trucks, insurance, overhead, etc. Estimates for Verizon's per home cost vary, but $500 is in the range often cited. In Verizon's case they're also deploying a set-top box to deliver TV, which Google hasn't announced plans to do (more on that below), so that cost should be deducted. But on the flip side, once again, because Google has never wired a consumer's home (that I'm aware of anyway) it has a steep learning curve ahead of it, meaning its costs could be much higher than Verizon's.

But to make things easy, let's just use the $500 per installed home. So 500,000 homes at $500 apiece, another $250 million for the project. Add it to the $500 million for the neighborhood build-outs and the total is $750 million. This assumes Google decides to go all the way to 500,000. Obviously if it stopped at 50,000, the costs would be a lot lower.

Executives at cable operators and telcos - who build and operate residential networks for a living - are very familiar with modeling network deployment costs. But I wonder, how familiar do you think Google is? Does it know what it has bitten off here? And for what benefit exactly - to test next-generation apps? Hmm. Everyone knows video is the biggest bandwidth hog; an expensive experiment isn't going to change that. And also remember, Google only plans to sell broadband Internet access, not a full bundle with TV or voice. It says it will do this at competitive prices, which means around $50-$100/mo. At these revenue levels and with operating costs that I haven't even mentioned, it's inconceivable to me that there's a positive business case for Google's gigabit experiment.

I'm all for innovation and for pushing competitors along. But Google's experiment really has me scratching my head. No doubt the folks at Verizon, Comcast and other big broadband ISPs are wondering as well. It's one thing for Google to throw $2.5-$3 million at a 52-second Super Bowl ad, but quite another to be contemplating a $750 million experiment with ambiguous goals. What am I missing?

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Paltalk, the long-time video chat technology provider, is announcing its Paltalk 9.9 beta release today, which includes a feature called SuperIM URLs, which allow users to initiate 1-click, in-browser video conferences without any client download. It's a clever feature that promises to drive higher adoption of personal video conferencing. Paltalk's CEO Jason Katz walked me through a demo yesterday.

SuperIM URLs work like this: say I'm a registered Paltalk user (either free or paid) so I've already downloaded the Paltalk software. I then select a personalized SuperIM address, for example http://www.wrichmond.superim.me. Then I begin publicizing the URL to friends, say through tagging my email signature, Facebook page or business card. People who see the URL simply click on it and, as long as they have a webcam, are instantly connected via video chat with me. Just so I don't have people barging in on me on a bad hair day, I can set privacy controls to always require accept/decline. I can also password-protect the link so I only hear from people I want to. I can also set it so only audio comes on first and I have to manually start the webcam.

I can have up to 10 people in a video chat and display the participants in different mosaics. The most obvious competition for SuperIM URLs is Skype, which I use for video calls. Jason agreed that while Skype does a lot of things really well, Paltalk SuperIM's big differentiator is that it does not require the caller to have downloaded any software to participate.

With SuperIM, the caller simply clicks on the URL provided and is connected. In effect, the conferencing capability is brought to users instead of the other way around. The goal is to make it so easy that anyone's "grandmother can use it" as Jason put it. Even though Paltalk has had its client downloaded some 70 million times, Jason acknowledged that it's a "busy Internet," and it's getting harder and harder to induce people to download any new software.

Another differentiator is Paltalk's multi-party capability, which Skype doesn't offer. This means that a Paltalk user could set up a multi-party video chat around a specific event simply by sending out the SuperIM URL to friends, asking them to click-through at a certain time (think "virtual Super Bowl party").

Going forward, Jason said Paltalk plans to eliminate the step of even having the initial user download the Paltalk software. Paltalk wants to become ubiquitous for mobile users and other portable devices like the iPad. Jason also makes an interesting point that with the spread of $300 Internet-connected netbooks with built-in webcams, personal video conferencing has become more accessible than ever. Paltalk is also aiming for tighter integration with Facebook, so users can initiate video chats to their friends.

I vividly remember that George Jetson's video phone was just about the coolest thing I'd ever seen when I was a kid. SuperIM URLs are yet another indication that the Jetsons' world is upon us.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Filckr image via writetechnology