Tibet Web TV Launched

The Central Tibetan Administration and Tibetan diaspora have launched Tibet Online, a web television site that will devote most of its coverage to the teachings of the Dalai Lama. However Tibetans inside Tibet may not be able to access the Web television site due to the Great Firewall. Looks like for now the website can be viewed inside the Great Firewall, though for how long, who knows! “Distance often uproots people from their social and cultural moorings. This online TV could well become a rallying point for Tibetans worldwide,” said Kalon Lobsang Nyandak Zayul, director of the documentary Joy of Living. Tibetonline.tv also features an archive of documentary films on Tibet.

“In the light of changing social patterns, particularly the young, increasingly relying on the Internet for news and information, the web TV will go a long way in getting across the policies and works of the Central Tibetan Administration, realizing thereby one of the cardinal objectives of the Kashag: transparency,” Mr. Zayul said.

Written by Shailaja Neelakantan on August 5th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on IPTV and Online Video.

Time Warner: The Frankenstein of Online Video

Time Warner’s new found love for online video is a laudable attempt by the media giant to cash in on the hot new thing. But scratch the surface, and you find an online video equivalent of Frankenstein. Each division doing its own thing, with its own partner. And this is all within this week. Here is a quick rundown:

1. CNN, (that belongs to Time Warner), is working with Blip.TV, which has licensed its software to CNN for getting video news submissions from amateurs.
2. AOL has a deal and an investment in Brightcove.
3. AOL has its own internal video efforts. Remember they also bought Truveo, which I guess is part of the new video search service, which allows them to sell videos including content from competitors. AOL also has UnCut video which is like CNN Exchange.
4. Turner, a division of Time Warner, has invested in Revver.
5. Time Warner has also invested in Veoh.
6. Sports Illustrated, a magazine owned by Time Inc., the one that puts Time in the TW is working with Yahoo to do a video thing.

Now if that isn’t a bumbling strategy then what is! Why isn’t CNN using Brightcove? Or for that matter some version of UnCut Video. Why isn’t SI working with AOL. What the hell is the strategy here? When will they start selling The Sopranos and Entourage and all other HBO goodness? Okay, time to stop, and let you join in!

PS: Anyone willing to make a graphic of the frankenstein that is Time Warner’ online video strategy. Disclosure: I am a former Time Warner employee, and currently write a column for Business 2.0, a magazine that is part of Time Inc., a division of Time Warner.

Written by Om Malik on August 1st, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on yahoo and AOL and Online Video.

Online Videos & Playing Into Apple’s Hands

Online video is the big story today… again. From CNN to AOL to Lulu.TV - everyone is talking about online videos, which begs the question - How many video sharing sites do we need.

We had asked this question nearly a month ago in the pages of Business 2.0 magazine. The frenzy clearly has gone to the next level. Amazon has jumped into the fray. More money is being pumped into the sector. Revvr for instance is getting more cash from Turner and Comcast. You Tube founders dream of an IPO.

All this on a Monday morning, makes one want to scream: Stop the madness!

Forget the video sharing sites for a minute, and instead lets focus on the pro-video content market. That’s essentially television shows and music videos for now, but movies are around the corner.

If you include AOL’s decision to sell videos for $1.99, you can buy this “pro” video content from Google, Amazon, AOL, Guba, FOX, and Apple along with scores of other sites. This content is mostly for PC viewing, though it will work on portable devices, such as iPod and Sony PSP.

This is reminiscent of the digital music market, which is chockfull of players with marginal market share. Apple’s iPod/iTunes dominates the market because it provides a stress free (some call it integrated) experience for the end user.

One stop shopping is a powerful concept, and as we see more and more “online video sales outlets” pop up, there is more than likely chance that consumers are simply going to gravitate to a stress free experience. This is precisely what Apple wants, sort of: now that you have tried the rest, how about just sticking to the best.

And as for the amateur video sharing sites… you don’t really need it spelled out.

Written by Om Malik on July 31st, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Google and Apple and AOL and Online Video and YouTube.

Maybe Google Should Buy a Movie Studio?

A few months ago, a dinner companion informed me that Google was in Hollywood trying to secure exclusive distribution rights to films and TV. Intrigued, I poked around with some folks-in-the-know and, sure enough, Google is wheeling-n-dealing for exclusives. That being the case, I have a suggestion for Google. Go all out and acquire an actual movie/TV studio… and the one to go after is Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.

Lions Gate is one of the last remaining independent studios in Hollywood and a deal would be relatively inexpensive for Google… LGF’s market cap currently stands at approximately $950 million, which is about the same as its annual revenues. Its vast library includes more than 5,500 film and TV titles, including the viral-hit “The Blair Witch Project”, last year’s Oscar-winner “Crash”, and Showtime cable channel’s hit show “Weeds”.

Google should acquire LGF with the direct intention of disrupting the Hollywood business model at every level. For instance, it should go through the arduous process of renegotiating, and securing, full digital distribution rights for all the titles in the library, making them exclusively available via Google Video. (It seems to be working for Apple, so why not Google!)

Consumers should be given the choice to either pay to download & own, or to stream it free with ads. And the pay option should be priced substantially below existing home video/DVD alternatives (e.g. $3.00 for sell-through/ownership), to reflect the lower cost basis of digital distribution. Moreover, if the consumer buys the title, they should be able to do whatever they want with it for personal use… burn it to DVD, copy it to an unlimited number of machines, etc. In other words, no DRM (or one that is far less restrictive than anything out in the market).

The market window has finally arrived for digital distribution for film and TV products, and Google has the opportunity to leap-frog all competitors by packaging a service that gives consumers what they want. All other efforts recently announced (which deals I won’t name) are all sub-standard and user-unfriendly… the terms of nearly every service reflect the fear and hostility that Hollywood harbors for digital media distribution. By buying and operating its own studio and library, Google can pursue a path free of the legacy barriers that prevent all the others from being able to offer the market a solution with massive consumer appeal.

Google should also go into this with the full expectation that it will upset existing media distribution channels, particular for theatrical exhibition and DVD sales (e.g. Wal-Mart). Consequently, Google should prepare for the fallout… little to no theatrical support for new releases, a material decline in DVD revenues of library products, etc. But that’s OK… in fact, that’s the point. Google should set aside the old metrics and establish new parameters for success. You don’t win in Hollywood by making friends and convincing them to change their ways… you win by changing the game and out-flanking the incumbents.

The fact is that Hollywood will continue to fear Google no matter how lightly it treads. Given that, Google might as well throw out its sheepish disguise and act openly like the wolf that it is. Acquiring Lions Gate is probably the most efficient way to make a substantive, bold move without taking on too much risk. And if millions of consumers start to rely on them as a viable alternative for film and TV products, Google will not only have disrupted Hollywood, it will lead it into the future.

After all, Rupert Murdoch acquired his way into the Internet and installed himself as the first “social media mogul”. So why shouldn’t Google buy its way into Hollywood and go after the emperor’s throne? Photo via Flickr with many thanks to Nice Cup of tea

Robert Young is a serial entrepreneur who played a major role in the invention & commercialization of the world’s first consumer ISP, Internet advertising (pay-per-click ads), free email, and digital media superdistribution.

Written by Robert Young on July 19th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Google and Apple and Online Video.

Blip.tv gets VC.Cash

You Tube keeps getting bigger and bigger - but that doesn’t stop money from flying into the online video start-ups. Don’t blame me for calling it - the madness! Blip.tv, a New York-based online video company has just closed its series A financing from private investors. The exact amount of funding hasn’t been revealed. Blip.tv is primarily a videoblogging service and gives users the tools to distribute videos to their own blogs, additional Web sites, video aggregators and search engines. More details to follow!

Written by Om Malik on July 17th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Online Video.

Where will Amanda Go?

Amanda “Rocketboom” Congdon has been unboomed! What a bummer since I really enjoyed her video podcast on Net Neutrality. She did not specify the reasons for the break-up or where she will go, but I have a suggestion.

Folks at PodTech should hire her - right away! (Doh… Scoble is already thinking along those lines.) With Scobelizer already in the house, they have the whole video podcast thing almost figured out. Add Amanda to the mix, and they become a serious player in the video-podcasting business. Video podcasts are more fun, and are likely to get more mainstream interest than podcasts. (Okay that is just my theory!) If done right, video podcasts can become big money earners, since they get higher CPMs. Say what John?

Written by Om Malik on July 5th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Broadband Life and Online Video.

Should Hollywood Fear Google?

By Robert Young

Let me expand the title… as Hollywood is increasingly forced to adopt the Internet as a distribution channel, should it be afraid that Google will eventually become the dominant gatekeeper for video?This question, which used to be one of the most pressing in the minds of media executives, seems to have been put on the back-burner lately due to the meteoric rise of online video sharing sites like YouTube and social networks like MySpace (not to mention Google’s own anemic efforts on the video front thus far).

Well, it would be a big mistake for Hollywood to drop the ball and not keep their eyes on Google as their primary threat, because the answer to the question is a most definite “yes”.I would go as far as to say that Google’s role as the dominant gatekeeper to online video is inevitable.And the reason why is pretty much exactly the same as the reason why Google came to be the king of search in the first place.

As we all know, Google revolutionized search by leveraging the most unique and powerful element of the web… the hyperlink.The basis of their innovation was the very simple premise that hyperlinks, and the way people use them, were a highly reliable proxy and filter for quality, relevance, and popularity.Google’s insight to use people power was actually quite counterintuitive (vs. the conventional wisdom of informational retrieval experts at the time) and it’s important to realize that if people didn’t continue to link en masse, there would be no Google.Conversely, the more people link, the more market power Google is able to usurp and wield. The strategic implications of this insight, which Google used to dominate the market for text-based search, are now about to spill-over into the world of video.

As more and more videos go online with every passing day, people will increasingly link and point to the ones they like, just like we do with text today.This will give Google the exact same opportunity with video as it had with text… they can unleash PageRank to index and aggregate video links with high popularity, relevancy, precision and recall.To a large extent, Google can just sit tight and do nothing, as it’s the people and the natural momentum of the web that will do all the heavy lifting to make this happen.Wayne Gretzky would be proud… Google already knows where the hockey puck is heading and it’s just waiting there with a clear shot at the goal.

For most in Hollywood today, the Internet is all about the challenges of going on-demand and adjusting to a non-linear programming format. And given such a mindset, most feel that it is sufficient to fortify and hide behind their war chest of copyrights and brands. But such thinking is short-sighted… what Hollywood really needs to understand about the long-term implications of the Internet is that the hyperlink is going to enable a dramatic and permanent shift in control over programming and distribution from the center (e.g.corporations) to the edge (e.g. consumers). People are increasingly becoming “social media programmers” and the continued momentum of the masses to hyperlink is a disruptive force that cannot be contained and prevented.So it’s not just about on-demand and consumer convenience, it’s about the disruptive effects of the hyperlink and the unstoppable loss of control it inflicts on “walled gardens” all types.

Given all that, what Hollywood needs to grok is that hyperlinks are to Google what spinach is to Popeye. As more and more hyperlinks to video are generated, Google will grow stronger, armed with the competency to harness the collective power and intelligence of all these links into a coordinated and unified threat. So going back to the original question… should Hollywood fear Google? The long answer is that the probability of Google becoming the dominant gatekeeper to video will be directly correlated to the amount of hyperlinks people generate over time. The short answer is… it’s inevitable

Robert Young is a serial entrepreneur who played a major role in the invention & commercialization of the world’s first consumer ISP, Internet advertising (pay-per-click ads), free email, and digital media superdistribution.

Written by Robert Young on June 7th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Google and Online Video.

You Tube vs Yahoo

Earlier this week, Yahoo announced a revamped video hosting service. Many saw it as a threat to You Tube (which has issues of its own.) In reality, Yahoo! has its work cut out. I checked with folks over at Hitwise, a traffic analysis and research firm, and they sent me data which shows that You Tube is miles ahead of their competition, including Yahoo! Video.

For instance, YouTube’s market share of Internet visits has increased 110% over the past three months (week ending May 27 versus week ending March 4, 2006). Yahoo! Video has increased its market share of visits 22% for that same time period. You Tube has higher usage metrics as well. For April 2006, YouTube’s average session time for that month was 15 minutes 33 seconds. Yahoo! Video’s average session time was 15 minutes 13 seconds.

In April 2005, Yahoo! Video’s average session time was 10 minutes 29 seconds and YouTube was not up yet. And just for kicks, for the week ending May 27, 2006, YouTube was the #43 ranked website among all websites, while Yahoo! Video was ranked #205 among all websites.

Written by Om Malik on June 2nd, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on yahoo and Online Video and YouTube.

Back to the Future… for Broadcast TV

By Robert Young

Back in the 1970’s, the television industry began a long period of market realignment that was caused by the introduction of a disruptive innovation called cable TV. After decades of market incursion, cable’s impact on the TV landscape is now complete and its disruptive effect has reached its peak. The result is the emergence of hundreds of cable channels that now account for more than half of our total viewing time.

This realignment of viewer attention has been at the expense of the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX), whose own collective share has declined from total domination of the TV screen to about 45% of viewership. Now, as the foundation of the television industry begins to tremble and crack again, this time from the disruptive forces of the Internet, the TV landscape is about to experience another tectonic shift. But in an ironic twist, a significant share of the TV industry is likely to unwind itself almost back to the days before cable, for reasons that will seem counterintuitive.

Five years from now, the TV market will no longer be segmented solely by major broadcast network vs. cable network viewership. Instead, the market will be further subdivided among viewers of linear broadcast programming vs. that of non-linear on-demand formats. Moreover, the on-demand segment will account for a steadily increasing share of total viewership. On the flip side, it’s equally important to note that the segment with traditional linear/broadcast programming (while declining) will continue to remain alive with its own significant share for quite some time. That said, within this linear/broadcast segment there will be a mini-disruption in the near term. To be specific, it is likely that most of the hundreds of channels we get today via our cable & satellite subscriptions will disappear and there will be only 10 to 20 “broadcast channels” left standing. Here’s why…

As just mentioned, overall viewership of linear/ broadcast programming will steadily decline. Such shifts in viewing patterns will cause collateral damage… that’s obvious, but here’s what may not be so obvious. The players that will get hit first and hardest will be the weakest of the cable channels. In other words, as on-demand programming takes share away from linear broadcast, it will be at the expense of all those niche-oriented channels that came into existence over the past few decades with the advent of cable… not the major broadcast & cable networks. These niche cable networks, many of which are barely treading water now, cannot afford to lose viewers for their linear/broadcast channels. If and when they do, it is highly likely that they will not be able to continue/renew their carriage on cable & satellite systems. The result: a steady procession of cable channels will start to disappear over time, at a rate that will be directly correlated to the increasing share of on-demand viewership. And the cycle will be self-fulfilling… as more and more channels go off-the-air, the lack of programming choice on broadcast will drive even more viewers to on-demand venues. And going back to my reference earlier of an “ironic twist”, the major broadcast networks will once again come to dominate the share of the linear programming schedule.

Now, this does not necessarily mean that all these cable networks will go completely out of business. Rather, many of them will be able to restructure and/or downsize, transitioning to a purely on-demand format, mostly via the Internet. The ones that already have relatively strong brands catering to specific niche audiences are the most likely to survive the transition. Even so, the shift will be painful and somewhat equivalent to a newspaper or a magazine having to give up its print distribution.

The disappearance of a large swath of cable channels will also have the secondary effect of disrupting the underlying business model of the cable & satellite providers. As cable channels are forced to shift away from linear programming, the only way cablecos will be able to preserve their content offerings will be through video-on-demand relationships. Without attractive VOD solutions, the cablecos will lose their content partnerships to the highly cost-effective and open Internet (which will be their major competitor regardless). This explains why companies like Comcast have been so aggressively pushing and deploying their VOD systems in the past year. Also noteworthy is that the changing landscape will also make the cablecos totally dependent on the major broadcast networks for their linear programming channels. Given all that, the business models of the cable/satellite providers will be subject to some very significant changes as their subscription model based on bundling channels comes under attack.

If the scenario outlined above proves to be a reasonable forecast of the future, the other set of players who are ideally positioned to win are the Internet TV ventures like Veoh and Brightcove. Unlike cable/satellite, they are not burdened with any market cannibalization or legacy programming issues. So with the freedom and ability to focus exclusively on the rapidly emerging on-demand segment of the market, particularly for branded programmers who cater to niche audiences, these startups can quickly become the lifeboats for sinking ships.

Robert Young is a serial entrepreneur who played a major role in the invention & commercialization of the world’s first consumer ISP, Internet advertising (pay-per-click ads), free email, and digital media superdistribution.

Written by Om Malik on May 22nd, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on IPTV and Online Video.

The vPod.tv Play

Rodrigo Sepulveda Schulz, a fellow blogger and broadband fanatic, is either a very brave man or has a plan. He has started vPod.tv, a new online video company based in France, along with his cofounder Ivan Communod. After bootstrapping it for nearly eight months, vPod.tv has raised a whopping $5.1 million in series A financing led by Innovacom.

The company allows users to upload videos, edit them online, and also publish them to different sites such as MySpace or eBay. In addition, advertising is built into the system, so the users can monetize their content more effectively. It also makes the content available over the wireless networks on user handsets, a particularly clever idea since 3G networks are becoming common place in Europe. Of course there are download options for PSP and iPod devices. (Mike has screenshots!)

Brave, because there are about 200-odd video companies out there, including AOL, Google, and Yahoo (planned) who just want your uncut, amateur videos. Of course, we all know how big You Tube is! So why jump into the fray? Seeking these answers, it was time to call Rodrigo and find out more about his game plan.

“We are trying to be less like YouTube, and more like Brightcove,” he explains. In other words, he will be the “web service” that powers the sites of other players with traffic. For instance, the company is now hosting and managing videos for FilmFestivals.com, which is currently focused on what else but, Cannes Film Festival. He wouldn’t talk about other (pending) deals.

Rodrigo succinctly points out that they are all battling it out in the US market, while he is going to play in his sandbox for now - Europe - before casting an eye on distant shores. “I know the market and I know the players, so it is prudent to focus here for now,” he says. He is betting that there is room for one big video play in Europe. He does have a point there, though I wonder if the world is truly flat, thanks to the Internet, why do start-ups have to be parochial? Regardless, his backer, Frédéric Humbert of Innovacom seems to have the same point of view. (He had backed Kelkoo which was sold €475m to Yahoo! two years ago, and Kelkoo became the #1 player in the Euroweb.)

Written by Om Malik on May 20th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Start-Ups and Venture News and Online Video.

Attack of the You Tube Clones

AOL just announced Uncut Video, their own version of online video sharing ala You Tube. (Read Mashable’s take on it.) Niall Kennedy says that Yahoo is working on something similar as well, and said so in its analyst day meeting with the financial analysts. Niall says that “The new video site includes videos from around the web and a few from Yahoo! users as well.”

With Google Video and MySpace Video already up and running, I wonder what are the exits for companies like You Tube and other such services? Will someone buy YouTube for its traffic? What are your thoughts on this?

Written by Om Malik on May 18th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on yahoo and Online Video.

BitTorrent Snags Warner Brothers

BitTorrent continues its efforts to go legit. The company has just snagged a deal with Warner Brothers. The Hollywood giant, part of Time Warner (my employer) will use BitTorrent to distribute and sell Warner Brothers content online. It is first major studio to sign a deal with BitTorrent that has been working with the MPAA to go legit, and become a distribution channel for Hollywood content. Earlier this year, BitTorrent, signed a deal with UK-based cable provider, NTL for legal P2P distribution.

The service will launch later this summer and will include newer releases such as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Now, this is not an exclusive deal, and the burden of distribution and sales falls on BitTorrent. Warner makes its content available for distribution. Time Warner has been toying with many different online video distribution technologies. AOL, for instance has a deal with Kontiki, and has been working with BrightCove. In Germany it has another kind of digital distribution deal. Only yesterday the Time Warner announced that it was working with its affiliate television station owners and will streaming content off the affiliate websites.

An optimists view would be that Warner Brothers like other content owners is charging boldly into the exciting new future. A more pessimistic view would be, wouldn’t it cut into DVD sales, leading to the more basic problems of divisional P&L statements? I posed this question to Warner folks who pre-briefed me about the upcoming launch. “DVD is a great business and we see BitTorrent as an opportunity to only increase the pie,” says Jim Wuthrich, Senior Vice President, Warner Bros. Home Entertainment. He sees the initial impact as incremental. WB, is hoping that 15% of BitTorrent users become buyers of their content. That is a modest goal, and quite achievable.

While BitTorrent might be good and all, it still cannot meet the ease-of-download of iTunes, which like music, is making downloading legal video a mainstream activity. Wuthrich pointed out that the company, like most in Hollywood is in talks with Apple as well. BitTorrent is a great way to distribute content, but the slow uplink speeds, and individual file sharers-throttling the bandwidth ruins the experience. The ISPs are beginning to crack down on bandwidth hogging services such as BitTorrent.

In addition, other erstwhile not so legit services are going legit these days, clouding the competitive landscape. For example, Azureus recently launched its own distribution platform, based on BitTorrent technology.

Written by Om Malik on May 9th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Online Video.

Dave.TV, AdSense for Video?

Another day, and another online video start-up. This one with a name that only the founder can love: Dave.TV. Unlike a series of me-too You Tube clones, this one is at least attempting to do something different. Dave.TV CEO and founder Rex Wong says his plan is to come up with AdSense for online video. Well, I have heard that story before, but Wong had sold his previous company, Applied Semantics to Google for $102 million, and claims that it was the foundation of what we today call as AdSense. So his big idea is something like this…

imagine if a computer could identify when somebody said “shampoo” or “burger” across millions of videos, and you could insert a text ad for Prell or Wendy’s along with a clickable logo graphic next to the video when those words are spoken…We will be using the same technology used by Homeland Security to monitor [telephone] chatter. Audio keywording will allow us to contextually figure out where to sell ads and to place more than just pre- and post-roll ads.

Don’t blame me for being skeptical. Or as Techdirt writes, “Imagine trying to serve ads for an episode of Lost based on what the characters are talking about. You’d get a bunch of ads for deserted islands.”

Written by Om Malik on April 25th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Start-Ups and Online Video.

BrightCove To Open Service This Week

Brightcove, the television-on-web company that is also one of the Business 2.0 Next Net 25 start-ups, is going to open its service to all comers later this week. Jeremy Allaire, founder and chief executive of Brightcove, made this announcement in his keynote speech at the NAB show. For past six months, Bright Cove has been an invitation-only commercial preview. The service will be available for free. More details are likely to emerge on Wednesday.

Written by Om Malik on April 24th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on IPTV and Online Video.

Video Killed The TV Star

Om and Niall PodSessions‘ latest session is up. We are discussing video’s big move to the move. I decided to talk about all the stuff - streaming versus downloads and other such things in this podsession. I was going to blog it, but got busy with other stuff. You can keep up with all my online video coverage here.

ABC recently announced streams of its popular shows will be available online for free. Fox will offer its programming online as well, including web-only episodes of popular shows such as Family Guy. Smaller players such as Rocketboom deliver content created especially for online viewing and syndicated through partnerships with companies such as TiVo. Filling in the middle is the iTunes video store and its single purchase and subscription offerings. Are large content producers merely experimenting with online distribution or is this a trend that is here to stay? What’s driving viewer numbers from all over the production spectrum from two guys on their couch to two news anchors behind a desk? Can online video distribution be profitable for large publishers?

This and more on in the latest podsession, which is 20 minutes long, a 9 MB download. Get it in iTunes or subscribe to our feed.

Written by Om Malik on April 20th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Podcasts and Online Video.

Akimbo, Yahoo & On Demand Video

Okay the headline is a bit misleading but there are some curious moves in the world of on-demand video. This morning AT&T (SBC) announced that it will integrate Akimbo’s on-demand video service with its AT&T Homezone service, which if you remember going to be powered by a special set-top box/DVR made by 2Wire that integrates the DISH Network, AT&T DSL, Yahoo-Broadband Services. AT&T Homezone is currently in trials. This is clearly a good move for Akimbo, which finally seems to be getting rid of its hardware strategy.

All the talk about Microsoft powered IPTV is good and great, but one wonders why AT&T is lavishing so much attention on this “Homezone” product offering. This whole IPTV thing might be going slower than anyone likes to admit. Meanwhile, Yahoo this morning acquired the technology of PVR company, Meedio. Dave Zatz thinks that “Yahoo will ultimately leverage the Meedio platform to interface with their music services and perhaps offer a video download service.”

Of course it could also mean that that much ballyhooed Yahoo-everywhere platform announced at CES is not going according to plan, and there have been rumblings that some of the developers have high-tailed out of dodge to do other things. Any tips, send them my way!

Written by Om Malik on April 18th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Connected Home and yahoo and Online Video.

Veoh Raises $12.5 million

As readers know, the venture dollars are flying thick and fast into the online video space. Today, Veoh Networks, announced that it had raised $12.5 million in a Series B venture capital financing from Michael Eisner, former chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, Todd Dagres, managing partner of Spark Capital, and Time Warner. Previous investor in the company, Shelter Capital Partners also participated in this round of financing. (The New York Times has details on Michael Eisner’s new investment company, Tornante, and life after Disney.)

We had heard rumors of this funding couple of weeks ago, though could not lock down the names of the investors. Dmitry Shapiro, chief executive of the company says that the new money will be used to scale the business, hire more people and increase the marketing message. He would have to focus on marketing especially since the market is getting a tad crowded. Also, he would have to work hard to get over the damage done to it reputation by its recent fracas with the video blogging community.

Update: Erick has more details on the funding at Business 2 Blog

Here is a short list of some of the recent online video fundings:

• Veoh raised $12.5 million to bring the total to $14.75 million
• You Tube raised $8 million to bring the total to $11.5 million.
• Revver raised $8.7 million in a recent round.

Written by Om Malik on April 17th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Online Video.

Is Network 1.0 also Network 2.0?

By Robert Young

As the debate and discussions reached a boiling point last week about the strategic implications surrounding the major TV networks and their bold moves to embrace the web, the big question that popped into my head was… where does this leave Google, Yahoo!, and all the other established web players who were counting on becoming major distributors of Hollywood media products?

For instance, by deciding to offer up primetime fare directly on their web site for free (with ads), did ABC just dis-intermediate the portals? If so, what does this mean for the fledgling Yahoo Media Group and Google Video initiatives, in terms of long-form, high-production quality content? My bet is that Lloyd Braun and Co are going to be busy contemplating “plan B”, and in fact working on “plan C”.

I find it telling that ABC chose not to include even their own affiliates, where local stations could have used their own web sites to stream episodes. As for Rupert Murdoch, while his Fox network did reach a revenue-sharing agreement with their affiliates, they also did not provision the affiliates with the ability to distribute shows on their own sites.

As the major TV networks increasingly place their programming on the web, what’s interesting is how little differentiation there is between the Yahoo’s of the world and the networks’ affiliates (e.g. when everything becomes a bit, the Internet is the great equalizer). It essentially becomes a game of who can offer larger audiences and better financial terms.

Wittingly or unwittingly, the major TV networks may be setting up their own affiliates to compete head-on against the major web portals (setting up your old distribution channel to compete against the new outlets is actually a smart chess move). The same competitive dynamics will also impact the traditional syndication market and home video/DVD distribution. Of course, a cynic could view all this simply as an stunt by the media companies to appease the stock market mandarins who have been baying like a pack of wild dogs.

But assuming that the broadcast networks have indeed turned over a new leaf, what should Yahoo et al do? In one sense the answer is simple… given that they already have the Internet audience, they can win the battle as long as they’re willing to put up the money (and Google certainly has the cash). But the reality is much more complex, of course, and the old distribution channels will fight hard. Either way, the major broadcast networks are looking at a chess board where they can’t lose… and they may end up proving that content is king after all.

Having said all that, there is one media player that stands out with unique leverage, and guess who that is. Yup, it’s Murdoch. With his ownership now of MySpace, he doesn’t need a Yahoo or a Google. This will give him tremendous leverage, and a significant comparative advantage, against all other networks as well as distribution channels, both old and new. Like him or hate him, call it luck or skill, his brilliance never ceases to amaze. I should also mention that the other media giant that’s nicely positioned, given the shifting strategic landscape, is none other than Time-Warner… their ownership of AOL may turn out to a major win after all.

Check out, MySpace versus networks via Alexaholic.

Robert Young is a serial entrepreneur who played a major role in the invention & commercialization of the world’s first consumer ISP, Internet advertising (pay-per-click ads), free email, and digital media superdistribution.

Written by Om Malik on April 15th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on IPTV and MySpace and Online Video.

Guba, Veoh Clean Up Their Act

Guba and Veoh, two companies that have come under heavy criticism are cleaning up their act, hoping to capture a more mainstream users.

Veoh was facing the ire of the video bloggers for taking their content and transcoding their videos into a proprietary format. A day after, the company backed off from the practice and is now seeking permission from the video bloggers. Veoh has removed all the videos they had re-hosted without permission. Dmitry Shaprio, CEO of Veoh wrote to video bloggers group:

we have made a decision to remove any videos published via an RSS feed that have not specifically been claimed by the feed owner. If you have published your feed to Veoh, but have not been able to claim it yet, it has been removed, and we ask you to please republish it. We apologize for the inconvenience, but there was no other way to clean the database.

Guba, a company that puts a web-interface to the Usenet groups has been tainted for giving access to adult content. The company today decided to split its adult content business into a separate unit. Guba, like nearly 90 other companies, is trying to cash in on the “online video hosting and sharing” business. Thomas Mcinerney, co-founder of the service emailed me and said, “We just open up Guba for free. No subscription required. Also, we’ve split adult content into a different brand… we’re expecting Guba to be in the Alexa top 100 inside of 6 months.”

Both the companies are in the process of raising more VC dollars, and I bet there was pressure to clean-up … fast. Veoh, I have heard is in the process of raising capital from some major hitters from the world of media and Hollywood. I will have more details later. Guba is also looking to raise more cash. “We’re talking to VCs now,” says Mcinerney. Guba is close to nailing a deal with a big studio. Perhaps that would nudge up the valuation.

The VC dollars are flying thick-and-fast into the online video business. Earlier today, Revver raised $8.7 million in fresh funding from investors such as Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Draper Richards, Bessemer Venture Partners and Will Hearst. Last week, You Tube has raised $8 million. JumpCut, Video Egg… oh forget about it… Mike has the lowdown on all the recent entrants in a market that is looking more crowded than an Old Delhi bazaar.

Even as the VC dollars flow into the online video space, just a little reality check: MySpace’s recent launch has already put it ahead of You Tube, though people are not spending as much time watching videos on MySpace.

Written by Om Malik on April 10th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Start-Ups and Online Video.