Joost - Countdown To Extinction? Points To Ponder Upon The Implementation Of A Web Based Version

First this ...

.. then this ..

... and possibly this really soon...?

... i hope not ... but that's not the point at all when i first read that Joost may be ditching their software player and replacing it with a web based version instead. That may signal Joost's dive into the saturation pool. And some say it could even be Joost's countdown to extinction in the long run as well.

Now consider these facts (read between the lines if you may):-

1. 80% of global Internet users come from outside the United States and the majority of that (especially Asia) are happy with the video quality of Joost.

2. 78% of global Internet users are not English speaking nor reading natives.

3. A recent quick survey done by a prominent marketing agency concluded that 83.5% respondents have either heard or used Joost as compared to Real Player, 10.5% and Hulu, 6%.

4. The majority of users who have installed PPLive, TVAnts or TVUPlayer have Joost on their machines as well. Ever wondered why?

5.YouTube is critical mass. Hulu isn't and will never ever reach critical mass for many obvious reasons. Joost should and could reach critical mass ONLY IF they stick to their original approach; their standout software player that is Flash based. In fact, Joost's buzz on the web (and there still is buzz and word of mouth going on.. trust me) is a hundred times greater than Hulu's.

6. In the next 2 to 3 years when broadbands speeds scale skyhigh while access fees decline and P2P BT method of transfers pick up steam and slowly become the norm for large file transportation, why should Joost even worry about bandwidth or P2P drawbacks by ISP's?

....after reading the above, do enlighten yourself with this:-

1. Why should users from Hulu, Veoh, Real Networks, etc switch over to use Joost's browser based version? What's going to be so 'buzzworthy' about the new Joost as compared to the above mentioned sites? What's stopping YouTube, Metacafe, Vimeo or the handful of Web 2.0 video sites out there from offering better or exclusive premium content or flanking in using the same strategy? You may be too late in the game if you use this new strategy of yours as history has shown in other web outfits in this same situation.

2. You've built a very sleek player (downloadable of course - think SKYPE, think KAZAA, think MSN MESSENGER, think ICQ, think YAHOO MESSENGER and think even QQ MESSENGER) and why should one consider downloading a piece of software a 'hassle'? You're unique and its mind positioining sticks so why change it before evaluating other options rather than shooting yourself in the foot by degrading technology?

3. You had so much buzz, traction, the wow factor, self generating word of mouth and the coolness factor when you rolled out your stable BETA which became the envy of the entire web industry, so why on earth aren't you giving enough time for your product to mature? Look back at dot com 1.0, those which survived took years and years to be where they at right now. The same goes for Bluetooth technology, LCD & Plasma screens, BlueRay players, Wimax, and now NFC. They took years of R&D for finetuning and increasing adoption rates. And on a different note, do you think broadband TV is going to replace or slow down TV (current) in the next 2 to 3 years? We all must be dreaming.

4. .. why fix something that's not even broken?

I have a lot more to rant here about how Joost can reach critical mass (global audience and not one that is just US or geek favored) using several tactics and strategies but i'm awfully tired right now after a long business road trip therefore ending this blog entry here. I sincerely hope Joost remains where she is today. However should they persist to try out their new web based version, i would highly recoommend changing their name to start the rebranding process all over again.

Comments

[Matt]

Ill tell you the real reason why Joost went to a web based plugin its becuser they can easier port the plugin to devices like game consoles and mobile phones its harder to do that with a full blown client.

The Joost client is cumbersome and takes alot of development and lead time to put out a new version .With the Plugin they can update on the fly and they can update and maintain the webpage without the end user even knowing .

With projects like XBMC maturing nicely to the exent where theres Mac ,Linux and Windows versions and companies developing around XBMC like Boxee Why does Joost need to maintain a desktop player ? When they can just hook into a Media Center frontend like XBMC with a Python Script or add XBMC support to the Plugin

[keisha]

i'm using XBMC and i'm also using joost desktop client. i like XBMC and Joost as well. One's a multimedia player and one's for content. i don't think they should join. they should be separate boxes.

[starcraftmaster]

whatever happened to dominating a segment of a market, which Joost did with their standalone software player?what makes them think that the Hulu approach is the way to go? is it a guarantee that they will increase traction with the new approach?

[tvevangelist]

And what's stopping Joost from 'upgrading' their desktop version into a personal media center like Boxee? Nothing. Screw hulu! it's no different than Youtube except 4 the fact that it's clearer than Youtube. plus, give youtube sometime and their HD version of 16:9 version should roll out without any problems because they are no 1 in the game.

[joostfan]

Why the hell would Joost wanna get into the browser based game? Can anybody here tell me where the source of this info is? That has got to be the dumbest move since the invention of slice bread.

[JC]

XBMC is way too buggy. At least joost's client doesn't freeze as often as XBMC. At least they still stream video and i hook it up to my TV via S-video output and it's brilliant!!!

[Chumba]

Joost = Technology
Hulu = You call progressive streaming hosted by a CDN provider a 'technology'?

Administrator : WELL SAID

[Hulu Sucks]

Okay having used the new Joost browser based version... i find NO ABSOLUTE reason whatsoever to switch from Vimeo or Hulu to Joost. The only reason why i kept Joost is because it was unique, standalone, 'cool' and everyone of my colleagues or friends who saw it asked me for an invitation to join.

WTF were they thinking? Ask a Skype / Gizmo user to switch over to a web based VOIP SIP system and they will tell u the same... WHY REINVENT THE WHEEL or WHY FIX SOMETHING WHEN IT WAS NOT EVEN BROKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Administrator : I have to concur with your statements. Hulu sucks? Hulu only sucks because it's not available in most countries so i don't intend to use it at all nor do most of my colleagues. Such arrogance has zero place on the web. Arrogance or not i totally understand reasons why Hulu has to limit its user base by country. They might as well state that they only open to US or Canadian citizens.

Back to Joost: What Joost lacked previously was the number of users but the only reason why i believe (my opinion) they never gained traction was because there were really too early in the game. Their desktop version was splendid, EVERYONE i repeat EVERYONE loved it and that sparked word of mouth amongst these users. Such a pity they have to 'downgrade' to a web version. I'll still keep the desktop version just in case they decide to revert back to it :-)

[realityengine]

i agree with the writer.. joosts decision to change to an in browser based application is moronic.. i used to frequent joost daily when it was an application. I havent touched it since my initial trial of the web based version.. it ruined the product for me. Final result was me setting up a media server in my home with 3 terabytes.

[Kevinrocky]

got to this page from Google .. really frustrated with the web based version. Why did they even bother to fix something that wasn't even broken. I'm sticking with Hulu for web streaming.

[секс v контакте]

any more posts coming ?