TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

Things just got interesting in the realm of live streaming.  Several months back rumours began to circulate that YouTube was planning to enter the market with their own release.  To existing players the implications of this at the time were significant.  Google’s cash pools combined with YouTube’s user base would represent a formidable opponent which would arguably take over the niche.

The rumour began in February 2008 with a statement by YouTube co-founder, Steve Chen, who was quoted by Pop17’s Saray Meyers as saying “Live video is something we’ve always wanted to do but haven’t had the resources to do correctly, but now with Google we hope to launch something this year.”

In the six months since then, things appear to have changed, and the fate of Ustream.TV, Justin.TV, Yahoo! Live and others is not nearly as sealed as predictors (such as myself) had initially quipped.

According to the Silicon Alley Insider, the prospect of a YouTube live streaming option is no longer on the table:

“…our source says that Google (GOOG) has never really seriously considered a live video service. We’re told that the notion was discussed months after Chen’s statement, but that the idea was tabled, for a variety of reasons. Chief among them: It would add significantly to Google’s infrastructure and bandwidth costs at a time when it’s trying to prove that the $1.65 billion it paid to buy the company will, at some point, pay off.”

The Insider predicts that live video won’t take off  “for at least another year or two.” Personally I think it will either be that or it won’t take off at all.  For most internet users at this point, online video is something to be consumed rather than produced.  Live streaming is one step further out from that in that and appeals to a very niche market.

Unlike on-demand video like YouTube, Google Video, Blip.TV and countless others, in which video files can be called upon at any time and viewed, reviewed, rewound, bookmarked even remixed, viewers of live streaming channels must be present as the broadcast is occuring.  In many cases the clips are available later as pre-recorded files, but it’s far less engaging because replayed instances lack the interactivity that characterises many streaming programs.  Viewers are frequently given the opportunity to discuss the broadcast via a text chat area visible in the same screen, and sometimes even call in via telephone.

Live streaming is also far more difficult to do well than pre-recorded video.  Considerations of  latency, video quality, bandwidth - both client and server side -  and indeed onscreen personality and presentation skills all reflect on the perceived quality of the show.  In an uncertain emerging market where many of these factors are still in their infancy and yet cost of entry and maintenance is high, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Google has backed off.

Perhaps the main exception to this notion is that of Big Media’s entry to live streaming.  In some ways it was a natural progression, because the industry is founded upon the same notion of broadcasting - just via a different means.  From a monetisation standpoint they also have the advantage of an existing advertising model to work with.  Furthermore, with TV historically being a main source of entertainment and information for many people, Big Media has the reputation and importantly content that people are already familiar with.

In the case of YouTube, as the quote says, Google is already “trying to prove that the $1.65 billion it paid to buy the company will, at some point, pay off.”  The prospect of forking out even more money to fund an uncertain venture is obviously seen as too risky.

Then again, Google has shown in recent years that it is willing to play the acquisition game to regain ground in the market.  This enables them to tactically use their resources while minimising risk, since they can sit back and observe the landscape for the solid talent - basically, let others forge new ground, and then buy them out when there is greater likelihood of stability and longevity.

This post is my submission for the Weeks 2-3 assignment for the Facilitating Online Communities course, which asks students to:

Write a post to your blog with your thoughts about the meaning of an online community and its uses. Include a list of identifying features that YOU would look for when assessing an online group or network for features which make it a community.

What is a community?
According to Wikipedia’s article on “Community“:

“The word community is derived from the Latin communitas (meaning the same), which is in turn derived from communis, which means “common, public, shared by all or many”….Communis comes from a combination of the Latin prefix com- (which means “together”) and the word munis (which has to do with the exchange of services), probably originally derived from the Etruscan word munis- (meaning “to endow”, or “to have the charge of”).”

The notion and nature of a community revolves around the holistic or aggregated elements and activities that make it up.  This includes how individuals interact with one another as well as the motives that drive them to do so.  Individuals arrive with their own objectives and interests, but the resulting community is characterised by something much larger than that, and arguably greater than the sum of its parts.

I see online communities in the same light.  As the Wikipedia entry describes, communities are common, public, shared, and characterised by an exchange of some sort - be it knowledge, expertise, services, or support.  The space in which community members congregate and interact is certainly different than communities in the more traditional sense; but the motives that drive the coalescence and resulting dynamic are much the same.

Additionally, of particular significance is the “sense of community” that McMillan and Chavis (1986) argue is characterised by four key elements:  1) membership, 2) influence, 3) integration and fulfillment of needs, and 4) shared emotional connection.

As quoted by Wikipedia, the study describes the development of a dormitory basketball team:

“Someone puts an announcement on the dormitory bulletin board about the formation of an intramural dormitory basketball team.  People attend the organizational meeting as strangers out of their individual needs (integration and fulfillment of needs). The team is bound by place of residence (membership boundaries are set) and spends time together in practice (the contact hypothesis). They play a game and win (successful shared valent event). While playing, members exert energy on behalf of the team (personal investment in the group). As the team continues to win, team members become recognized and congratulated (gaining honor and status for being members).  Someone suggests that they all buy matching shirts and shoes (common symbols) and they do so (influence).”

A critical aspect of this example is the individuals’ transitions from a focus on their own interests (”me/I”) to a sense of community cohesion (”us”).  This, I think, is one of the core differences between collections of individuals that could be classified as a “community” and those that cannot and reflects the notion of a shared identity.  Particularly in the online realm - especially in distributed networks - technical environments can include both communities and non-communities all in the same space - making it potentially difficult to draw hard lines to separate the two.

Online Communities

Unlike traditional communities in which geography is frequently seen as a common denominator, in the online realm communities frequently develop independent of geographical boundaries and can be found in a variety of different technical landscapes.  Most commonly they fall into either centralised and distributed models, which refers to the space in which community members interact with one another.

In the case of the edublogging community this distribution is quite pronounced, with communication and collaboration occurring across countless sites including Twitter, Diigo, Ning, Delicious, blogs, wikis, discussion forums, mailing lists, email, instant messaging, and SecondLife.

In both the centralised and distributed models, the technical framework is a facilitating mechanism for group interaction.  In the case of edubloggers, the common denominator is a shared vested interested in learning and teaching, as well as exploring the educational potential of emerging technology.

Familiarity and Shared Emotional Connection

The distributed model raises another important characteristic that distinguishes communities from non-communities: familiarity.  This relates quite closely to the fourth element of McMillan and Chavis’s study concerning a “shared emotional connection” in that it incorporates emotional and psychological notions of identity and trust.  Two individuals can share common belief systems and professional circumstances, but without a familiarity with one another it’s unlikely that they would develop a shared emotional connection.

Here it becomes clear that the existence of a network does not necessarily imply a community; nor are the two mutually exclusive. In the case of the population of edubloggers, the wider network contains a community within it - in fact it is more than likely that there are a series of communities.  Edubloggers may possess a shared value system, a willingness to work towards a common goal, and occupy a shared space and, but won’t necessarily share the familiarity with one another that is critical for a true community.

Types of Communities

One possible reason for the existence of multiple communities within a shared network may be the in the differing objectives or focus of the members - and as such the overall purpose or use of the community.  The Wikipedia article includes three examples of this:

• Geographic Communities
• Communities of Culture
• Community Organisations

Etienne Wenger introduces the notion of Communities of Practice (CoP) in “Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System” arguing that “a community of practice is…different from a community of interest or a geographical community, neither of which implies a shared practice.”

Communities of Practice, Wenger indicates, are defined by three key dimensions:

• What it is about - its joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members
• How it functions - mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity
• What capability it has produced - the shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time.

Each example above highlights the significance of context and agreed purpose in the development and lifespan of a community, and the reason why a single population of individuals can result in numerous niches and subcommunities - each of which caters to a different value system, need, demographic, geographc, or purpose.