RSS
Twitter
Hype And Reality For Joost -- No, Joost Does Not Lead The Way With Web Video
from the i-can't-believe-what-I-just-read dept
The online video company Joost gets a ton of attention, but mainly for the fact that its two founders were the guys behind Kazaa and Skype -- and the fact that it's raised a lot of money. However, what amazed me this weekend was two separate media reports suggesting that Joost was some sort of huge success, when almost every other indication was that it had stumbled massively. First, there was Crain's New York suggesting that it was a huge deal that Joost had chosen to locate its US headquarters in New York rather than Silicon Valley, calling the company "a top online video company." Ok. Perhaps -- though it seems like a stretch. In the online video world, there's basically YouTube and then everyone else. However, the real kicker was Information Week, which bizarrely declares: "Joost is still a leader in high-quality video by any measure" under a headline declaring "Joost Leads The Way With Web Video."
Well, first of all, Joost doesn't lead the way in web video because it still hasn't released a web version. Second, the claim of it leading "by any measure" seems hard to square up with nearly a dozen reports about Joost's prospects. In fact, about the only "measure" by which Joost may be leading the internet video space is in hype (or, possibly, bandwidth consumption). By nearly all other reports out there, Joost has been in serious trouble this year, with people not finding its limited content (and need for a download) all that compelling. In response, the company has ditched most of its ambitious plans to focus much more narrowly on a short-term strategy to help the company survive. The company has also had tremendous downtime and layoffs. Even Joost's own investors don't have much nice to say about the company. In other words, it's difficult to see how Information Week can declare in any way that Joost is somehow leading the market.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
I have joost account... looked at it a couple times and never used since -- I'm absolutely not interested in it because I can't save videos. My watching patterns are so random, and joost has stupid habit of pulling videos offline. And what's that BS about not being able to watch shows because I'm in a wrong geographical region? This is freaking Internet, dammit, I don't care about geography! Pirate Bay, here I come...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
the beta sucked
the beta sucked and i haven't given the product a second glance.
i had hopes for it in the closed beta when they were the venice project, but the product never worked (direct x rendering for video, are you guys serious?) for me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
the real deal
www.hulu.com is the answer
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's free and legal TV on the internet, I don't see why any of you are complaining. I love it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Doubt
www.hulu.com IS the answer, YaRight got it right!
And the best part is that on some videos you can choose to watch in HD(480p or whatever).
I used joost until my machine was to slow to run the client.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: the real deal
...if you happen to live in the US.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
It's free and legal TV on the internet, I don't see why any of you are complaining. I love it.
I'm not *complaining* about Joost. I'm complaining about false claims that somehow Joost is a "leader" in the field.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Meh
Joost is OK, but nothing special. I quite like the interface overall, but it can be clunky and I've come across videos that are "no longer available" quite a few times. Other than Robot Chicken, few of the channels I'm interested in seem to change very much and it's not truly multi-platform meaning that I have to boot to Windows every time I want to view anything (unlike, say, Miro or anything downloaded via torrent).
So, it's a decent idea implemented in an OK way but it seems to have been overshadowed on the US market. A web client with more content available would be a great way to overcome these problems, but of course the content isn't necessarily their decision.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Joost over time
My problem with joost is that its got a barely workable client (which i could deal with) combined with programming that is disorganized, and an interface that cant decide if its supposed to be used at 10 feet or 1!
I tried joost, and I tried to love it! But alas, it was just never really what I wanted for video.
I do love their website graphics though!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Another bad comment
I tried it as well, a couple beta's anyway. It was cool at first, the concept, the programing, the look of it... But it all just started going away... RIP joost. Now, whats new on YouTube... Click click -- C-YA!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Simple Math
Content + Ads + P2P = fail.
P2P is for free stuff, not a means of offsetting distribution cost on the backs of 3rd parties.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: the real deal
Why do I want a HULU?
Looked it up and it says HULU is:
"Slang in South Africa for large piles of Elephant Excrement / Feces.
Example:
I can't beleive your wife found out you did that your in some major "Hulu"
Sounds like this HULU is a delicious cake!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment