Joost: The PointCast of 2007?

No startup has been more unanimously embraced (and hyped) by Big Media than Joost, the latest in a long line of (so far) failed attempts to bring television to the Internet.  Today, for example Joost announced a partnership with VH-1, in which Joost will premiere a new VH-1 series before it runs on TV. 

Joost is certainly slick, and its non-user-posted features are certainly friendlier to incumbent TV networks than, say, YouTube.  But do Internet users actually like it?  How many users does it actually have, anyway?

The Joost software that I beta tested reminded me of 1) television, which I like to watch at night and on the weekends but not at work, where I use the Internet most, and 2) PointCast, the bandwidth and processing hog that enjoyed a brief burst of buzz in the mid-to-late 90s before annoyed users began ripping it off their PCs.  For the sake of Joost fans (and Big Media), I hope Joost has a longer life than PointCast, but I haven't seen any numbers that persuade me that this will be the case.

Joost took the VH-1 announcement opportunity to note that it has "more than 500,000 users."  It's possible that this means it has "more than 500,000 regular viewers who use the service at least once a week", but it's also possible that this means "downloads."  Clarification here would be nice.  Some sense of a growth trajectory and churn would also be helpful: Is the 500,000 growing...or stable (or worse)?  Do new users use the service more as they get used to it...or do they try it out a few times and then abandon it?

I'm open-minded and would be glad to look at any data that can provide insight into Joost's future.  For now, however, count me among those who think the hype may exceed reality.

Comments

[Brooke Kuhlmann]

I would lean on the side of more hype than reality. However, I use the service and do like it despite issues with video quality. I hope to integrate it in my home via a media server soon so that family and friends can tune into Joost rather than cable TV when visiting. The only problem is that the video can be really choppy at times depending on connection (in my case, I'm using a dedicated 100MB LAN line connected to a 10MB cable modem).

Like I said, it is nice, but has some ground to cover yet.

[pwb]

I'd have to agree. I feel like there's something there but every time I fire it up (once a month or so), I quit pretty soon after with little satisfaction.

I think AppleTV is going to be more than a hobby for Apple. If it can get a few of the TV networks to stream their already-free streams through iTunes-to-AppleTV, then I think we have something.

[Peter Green]

My feedback on the beta....

The Minus:

1.) Not Web 2.0 . This is not a web 2.0 application, as you have to download and install a client that runs as a standalone application. This model limits the portability of the application to OS and hardware that the authors select. The majority of new web 2.0 application can be used on any device that supports current browser technology. As such, I see this standalone client model as a dramatic limitation on adoption. I.e. where is the Xbox-360, PS-3 or Wii client.

2.) Firewall and port blocking issues. I could not get the video streaming part of this application to work at my work site. You should note that employer has one of the most open Internet connections, surpassed only by universities and your home connection. People with personal firewalls or routers are going to run into issues. As such, I see this connectivity issue as another major limit on adoption. Note, I did get the streaming video to work at home so I could continue my testing of the application.

3.) Processor and screen hog. This application (runs as tvprunner.exe) started and took about 80% of my processor (Pentium M 2GHz machine) cycles for at least a minute. Then is settled out at ~20% while streaming video or navigating the GUI. Memory usage is also fairly high and jumps to 100M even before you start to stream video. To access some of the functions of the application you have to let it go full screen. I know of no other application which limits core functionality based upon screen size. This GUI limit is going against the standard application design practice.

4.) Content. Content is limited to that provided by the Joost channels. There is a channel catalog that lists; New On Joost, Most Popular, Staff Picks, All Channels and 8 different genres. In all, I estimate 112 channels currently listed. Each channel has a list of programs that are available for viewing. There is anywhere from four to dozens of programs listed on each channel. (Side note: Remember when AOL and Yahoo tried to sort all Internet content into folders... you got it … I.e. the same old model of fixed content channels that does not scale.) The program length varies from the short 2 minute clip to a full 30 minutes in the documentary genre. The video quality of the content is somewhat less that 480i and did not look good my 24in wide screen display at home. I did not bother to try to on a large display. Note content I would project on a 42in screen!

4b.) User Content

I believe this is where the joost.com model really falls down. This client does not provide an option of getting content from anything other than the channels that they provide. You can not access home photos, music, videos, etc. It does not allow you to source video from other Internet locations. This limitation makes the application just one step better than broadcast TV, but you have to put up with low quality video.

5.) Search / Tags. I assume you have experienced and understand the values of tags and search. The developers of Joost.com have missed the whole point of user tags and there is no such feature in the software.

6.) Personalization. Again, I assume you have experienced and understand the value being able to personalize a web 2.0 application. The developers of Joost.com have also missed this one. They do have a My Joost pop up display that has some degree of personalization, but it is 1999 widget technology. (News ticket, Clock, Rate It, Notice Board, Instant Messaging)

7.) Social networking or community. They missed it! Yet clearly social networking has value and attracts people to the application. Look at flickr, youtube, myspace, facebook, etc. There is always a sense of social networking and the ability for users to create communities of interest. E.g. someone should be able to create and join a CSI community on joost.com.

The Plus:

1.) Content. On a personal note, the S.I. Swimsuit on Demand and INDY-500 Films channels are interesting ;)

Bottom line: I have no idea if this is going to be a success or failure, . I just know that as Joost.com stands right now, it is not going to be one of my go to sources for multimedia content.