PDA

View Full Version : Youtube Live : Will they take over Live streaming?



andrewzarian
03-26-2012, 08:33 PM
I am very curious what services like Ustream and Stickam are thinking right now. Youtube Live seems to be getting ready to open up the flood gates to its service. I personally welcome another service.

Spencer Kobren
03-26-2012, 08:36 PM
I am very curious what services like Ustream and Stickam are thinking right now. Youtube Live seems to be getting ready to open up the flood gates to its service. I personally welcome another service.

Itís really up to YouTube. If they want to take over, they will. Google rules the world!

andrewzarian
03-26-2012, 08:38 PM
currently I think the highest video format they are allowing is 640x360 im sure this will change when they go live with the service.

joedemax
03-27-2012, 10:19 AM
currently I think the highest video format they are allowing is 640x360 im sure this will change when they go live with the service.

Probably because they haven't added a resolution selector to the live player yet.

gfqnetwork
03-27-2012, 10:21 AM
Youtube has a taped in audience much larger then any of the other streaming sites. that will definitely be something that benefits them in the long run

JakeKettle
03-27-2012, 11:25 AM
I can't wait for Youtube live to come out, I know I'll be using it if I am able. I think that they could overtake some of the sites, the smaller ones, but I think Justin, Stickam, etc. have a large enough following to stay in the business for at least a little while.

Spencer Kobren
03-27-2012, 12:47 PM
I can't wait for Youtube live to come out, I know I'll be using it if I am able. I think that they could overtake some of the sites, the smaller ones, but I think Justin, Stickam, etc. have a large enough following to stay in the business for at least a little while.

In my opinion, itís Ustream that will really take the hit. Eventually celebrities and big brands will all migrate to YouTube. Sites like Stickam, with more of a focus on community might actually thrive in this new environment.

andrewzarian
03-27-2012, 02:39 PM
Spencer is correct. Ustream is very dependent on Celebs using the service.

Spencer Kobren
03-27-2012, 03:10 PM
Spencer is correct. Ustream is very dependent on Celebs using the service.

Should be interesting to see how Ustream evolves this year. They might want to consider embracing some of the less ďfamousĒ internet broadcasters in an effort to develop unique programming. Only time will tell...

RadarGaming
03-27-2012, 07:59 PM
A huge thing that is really killing YouTube Live right now is the chat. I mean come on IRC has been around for so long and they put in some comment system that lags behind. Also if you ask any YouTube Live streamers thay say "New stuff is coming soon" I have heard that the past 2 months.

erictimmer
05-01-2012, 03:08 PM
Ustream is making a big play over here in Asia. They have invested heavily in Japan and Korea, and have partnered with a lot of local companies. YouTube will be hard to beat once they turn on the Live feature. I hope multiple players can exist, to keep all innovating.

I have a feeling Google will try allow Google+ hangouts to stream live to YouTube first to help boost the service. Lots of experimenting going on with G+ Hangouts.

andrewzarian
05-01-2012, 05:07 PM
Interesting you say that eric. I just discovered this :

Google Hangouts On Air

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csQAElqX2jU

cseeman
05-03-2012, 10:50 PM
I think there's a lot that can go wrong with YouTube.
Often, when it comes to marketing and completing a "call to action" user engagement is more important than raw viewership. YouTube has developed a fair number of ways to engage for their VOD stuff, likes, sharing, comments, liking comments, video responses.

With live streaming the engagement has to be close to real time. That means chat rooms for example. I'm not sure they're there with that yet. Without that, you move towards a passive medium like TV (only on the internet). Given that they're only using select partners who may have a good history with VOD but may have little experience with live, it remains to be seen what kind of content will develop.

Of course Google has the resources to get it right eventually but if you think back to the "early days" of YouTube, they weren't a stellar example of VOD content or technical quality either.

cseeman
05-03-2012, 10:50 PM
The business models used by Livestream and Ustream and the like are very different. Sure there's the free ad insertion based content but that's not where their money is made. As someone from Livestream said to me a while back (paraphrasing), "We can drop all our free content and it wouldn't hurt us financially." Their money is primarily coming from their paid services. Sometimes having the largest market share on the free side isn't the most profitable thing.

Basically Google (YouTube) is a company based on an advertising model. Livestream and Ustream are based on a services model. The ad based business models are still in a state of flux. From everything I've heard the rates on online advertising are not as profitable as cable or even print advertising (and this is a major dilemma for the print industry as it moves to online distribution).

If I were a business, while I might be attracted to the viewer numbers and cost but I'm not sure if it would give me the best sell through. It's probably for similar reasons that while YouTube exists there are still OVP (Online Video Providers) with paid services that business turn to and the results may be more profitable for both the business and the OVP.

Certainly the above is subject to debate (it is in the industry that's for sure) but YouTubes gargantuan size and resources may not make it the best value proposition. We won't know for some time. It can be a big success. It's certainly not a sure thing though.

Linuxcooldude
07-11-2012, 03:16 PM
I think Youtube tends to stick with its big money makers then smaller broadcasters. I don't think we will see them opening its live streaming service to everyone anytime soon, if at all.

cseeman
07-11-2012, 03:49 PM
I think Youtube tends to stick with its big money makers then smaller broadcasters. I don't think we will see them opening its live streaming service to everyone anytime soon, if at all.

Many people can stream to YouTube using Google Plus Hangouts. I've done it.
You have to be a partner if you want to have any chance of using a direct stream with Wirecast for YouTube or your own front end.
Either way, YouTube is concerned with their own numbers (for their advertisers) rather than providing a quality service for your own custom use.

Linuxcooldude
07-11-2012, 04:03 PM
Many people can stream to YouTube using Google Plus Hangouts. I've done it.
You have to be a partner if you want to have any chance of using a direct stream with Wirecast for YouTube or your own front end.
Either way, YouTube is concerned with their own numbers (for their advertisers) rather than providing a quality service for your own custom use.

Ok, I just tested it and it indeed does let you broadcast live to your youtube channel. I guess they changed that feature later on. Thanks. I thought it just allowed you to put a prerecording up to your Youtube channel once you stopped broadcasting on hangout.

Linuxcooldude
08-06-2013, 05:04 PM
Update:

Well, they did initially let people who have at least 1,200 subscribers have access to Youtube Live directly without going to Google+ Hangouts.

I finally applied for it but was doubtful on them letting me gain access since i only have 277 Subs. But I got access now and it does work directly from Wirecast. But obviously you have to go to Youtube to setup a Live Event first.

cseeman
08-06-2013, 05:10 PM
This past Friday they dropped the number of subscribers needed to 100. I have 262 subs and was approved as well.
There's a very interesting feature set. Stream at 1080 (if you have the bandwidth) and they'll create the lower bandwidth streams. DVR mode during live streams is also interesting.

TomSinclair
08-07-2013, 08:30 AM
I'll be trying YouTube Live for today's show including preshow. www.thatvidblasterguy.com 3 ET/8 UK with preshow starting abut 30 minutes before.

oscarmartz
08-07-2013, 10:29 AM
How is Youtube live working for internet broadcasters. Everyone I have spoken to says its still not ready

cseeman
08-07-2013, 10:43 AM
How is Youtube live working for internet broadcasters. Everyone I have spoken to says its still not ready

It's impossible to interpret "not ready." What's not ready? Please be specific.
It's not without "fault" be ever service has their advantages and disadvantages for a given producer's needs.

gfqnetwork
08-07-2013, 11:46 AM
We would like to use Youtube live but can't for a number of reason.

Terms of Service - Youtube states that you can not have a 3rd party ad placed anywhere on the show. No live reads, no Billboards

Strict Streaming Guidelines- Youtube requirement for "HD" broadcasting is much higher then most CDNs. In order to do 720p youtube Requires you to stream 2000-4000kbps

36 hour limit for stream - We stream 24/7. Youtube live would require us to restart the stream.

thetechbuzz
08-07-2013, 11:51 AM
I think that for me, having advertisers, it's not something that will work for me do to their TOS with adverts. Not to mention without the script that I posted a while ago I got from a google developer on embedding your youtube feed on your site. I've seen some sync issues, as well as delayed videos. I think for people using hangouts as their broadcasting platform it's great, or someone that doesn't want the pre-rolls that jtv and ustream have.

cseeman
08-07-2013, 12:05 PM
YouTube's business model is to monetize with their own advertising FWIW of course.
They're also geared towards "events" rather than 24/7.
Alas like most CDNs each has their own business model.
The advantage of YouTube is that it costs nothing.
All factors that need to be weighed.

I wouldn't call that "not ready" so much as YouTube is quite ready to implement their own business model which is not suited to those looking for monitization control.

I can't speak to the bit rate issue because because I'm not absolutely sure what you send is what the viewer receives. Since they are doing re-encodes I'm not sure that they're not doing a re-encode of the "master" data rate one is sending.

TomSinclair
08-08-2013, 08:27 AM
I tried it yesterday for my weekly show (That VidBlaster Guy!) with mixed results.

The set up process was relatively clear using FMLE separately. I had to make some adjustments in FMLE that I don't normally do (baseline to main, 3.1 to 4.1, keyframes to 1 sec). I streamed 864x480 @ 1000kbps and that part worked fine.

I embeded the YT player on a webpage and it could be viewed at 864x480 as the default, but the YT page used 640x360 as the default.

YT provided three options for live viewing: 480p, 360p, and 240p. A fourth option is now available on my YT page: 144p.

Some European viewers were disappointed as the show was not available to them. Germany for sure, not sure which others.

The biggest flaw for me was the delay from live. Some viewers reported a 20 second delay from live, some over a minute. That made chat interaction very frustrating.

All in all, it was a great experience, but I will probably not use it again, at least not for a talk show format.

joedemax
08-10-2013, 02:04 PM
[QUOTE=TomSinclair;5477]I streamed 864x480 @ 1000kbps and that part worked fine.

I embeded the YT player on a webpage and it could be viewed at 864x480 as the default, but the YT page used 640x360 as the default. /QUOTE]

FWIW, I've like to point out the 864x480 is not a resolution that YouTube (or really anywhere else) actually uses. 864x480 is actually 10 pixels too wide to be 16:9. I would set your video software and FMLE to be 854x480.

Kidder
04-05-2014, 04:47 PM
I embeded the YT player on a webpage and it could be viewed at 864x480 as the default, but the YT page used 640x360 as the default.

Tom, where does one find this embed code for the livestream, or is it an aftermarket player?

andrewzarian
04-13-2014, 01:21 PM
Its amazing that this thread was made over two years ago and youtube has not taken over the entire live streaming market. It says something for sure.

cseeman
04-13-2014, 01:57 PM
Setting up an Event is awkward compared to just having a channel you can go live to anytime.
While an Event can be embedded, it's on an event by event basis. it's much easier to embed a channel as can be done with other services.
Their text posting doesn't have the same feel as having a live text chat.

mcphillips
04-13-2014, 05:57 PM
Their text posting doesn't have the same feel as having a live text chat.
Ain't that the truth?

domineaux
04-14-2014, 08:37 AM
Google can dominate somethings, but beware.

Google is now trying to migrate from multiple user accounts and allow one account only. This makes harvesting information easier for them, and they can eliminate who they want with one switch. This can be very bad, because if they don't like what you produce the Google police will shut down everything. It is extremely difficult to get reinstated, if at all. Google, I suspect will become the thought and controlled speech police before it is done.

The government is currently in a war over freedom of speech. Look at the bit about "free speech zones", where the government created fenced compounds where people were allowed free speech at the Bundy ranch. The people ignored these clearly defined areas. Google and social media are all pandering to government, in turn they get contracts and tax incentives. You really can't fight the system, because government money is infinite. It is created from thin air.

The live stream providers need to think hard about their fees and services. Google is competition, but there are things live stream providers can do alot better...just because they are smaller and have more flexibility. If these providers sit on their hands to wait and see what's going down, they won't react soon enough to keep anything close to market share. When Google makes their move after they work through all their maze of internal considerations they will pop onto the markets with advertising, cheap and probably free service. It is hard to beat competition from well financed companies when they really want the business.

Google is a behemoth, moves slow and is very autocratic about everything. So, there is that.

If Ustream, livestream and other video providers wait to see what Google is going to do...they will be so gone so fast you won't believe it. These companies that will be affected know who they are.

New $6,000 hardware items like livestream is selling will do more to tank them than they can imagine. The bit about riding the fence between markets will not serve them well. These providers need to focus and provide competitive services where they want to establish their business. BUSINESS IS NOT A STATIC ENVIRONMENT, businesses must be dynamic and innovative to succeed. WHat worked yesterday will not work tomorrow.

Look at the apps for video and streaming for iphones. Is the camcorder dead, is the $500 live stream camera dead? Product lifecyles when ignored, well we know the ends.

I forgot to mention... The live stream providers need to make serious efforts to have access to viewers by roku, amazon fire, and other wifi/ethernet console devices. The ability to access their broadcasters should be as seamless as possible.