Joost is sorta irrelevant in an RSS/flash video world.
Like this comment on NewTeeVee says:
Joost is:
- Proprietary.
- DRM-encumbered.
- Not available for GNU/Linux, *BSD or Solaris (the only systems I use).
So my conclusion is: I couldn’t care less about Joost, good riddance.
Joost is just trying to recreate TV. Which is fine, except, you know TV already exists. It’s closed, it’s closed, doesn’t allow for embedding, and wants to take over my entire screen.
The bigger thing is that the tech is easy, the licensing deals are hard. So what we’re seeing with Hulu is just going to replicate with other major content players. They’ll launch their own sites, with killer content that we all want to watch and keep all of the ad dollars without paying Joost a dime.
3 Comments
January 20, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I could see Joost’s technology being useful for, say, adding a live TV component to AppleTV.
For example, Steve Jobs is a major player in Disney. Disney owns ESPN. So if Apple licensed (or bought outright) the Joost technology, they could use it to offer AppleTV owners a subscription to all the ESPN channels for $19.95/mo. Suddenly, some American sports fans might have a reason to ditch cable.
It probably won’t happen, but it’s possible, and it’s certainly more compelling than anything Joost is doing on its own right now.
January 20, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I have played with Joost for a while now – but it certainly isn’t where I go for content – the interface is pretty strange, and there is something about it I can’t quite put my finger on that bugs me about it.
I don’t think Apple would have to buy Joost – they’ve got streaming down pretty good already, I think.
I’ll just keep promoting all the podcasts to my friends as they get desperate for stuff to watch as new shows on TV dry up (thanks strikers!).
March 8, 2008 at 7:16 am
Any thoughts on Miro? I like it as a standards (RSS)-based aggregator. It does a nice job scaling FLV to full-screen.