Google Balks at YouTube Live Streaming
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.
