Showing posts with label Comcast. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comcast. Show all posts

12 February 2011

Why Starting Justin.tv Was A Really Bad Idea, But I’m Glad We Did It Anyway




Editor’s note: The following guest post was written by Justin Kan, founder of Justin.tv

Right now I’m neck deep in product launch mode, putting the finishing touches on our new mobile video application—Socialcam. Of course, I’ve been here before . . .

Years ago when we launched the Justin.tv show we had no idea what we were doing. This much was obvious to anyone who watched. Outsiders attribute far more strategic thought to the venture than we gave it. Some think that we planned all along to start a live platform, and that the Justin.tv show itself was a way of promoting that platform. While this ended up happening, none of it had crossed our minds at the time.

Emmett Shear and I had been working on Kiko, the first Javascript web calendaring application in the Microsoft Outlook style. We prototyped the application in our final year at Yale, went on to raise money from Y Combinator, then continued working on it for over a year.

Then Google Calendar was released—boom—absorbing most of our nascent user base and capturing most of the early adopter mindshare. But to be perfectly honest, Kiko would have failed regardless. We were too easily distracted and hadn’t really thought through the strategic implications of owning a standalone calendaring property (hint: no one wants a calendar without email). A short time later we were burned out and spending most of our time playing Xbox with the Reddit guys in Davis Square—hardly a startup success story.

Emmett and I started thinking about possible ways to get out of the calendar business. At the same time, I was startup fatigued. We had spent over a year paying ourselves nothing. The seed and angel investment market conditions were the polar opposite of what they are today. It had been a struggle to even raise a paltry $70,000, and we had failed to build a product with real traction. I was starting to think about moving back to Seattle to try something new, maybe in a different industry.

Still, we learned a ton and it was fun to be part of the early Y Combinator startup community (then largely in Boston). We became friends with Matt Brezina and Adam Smith (of Xobni), Trip Adler, Tikhon Bernstam and Jared Friedman (of Scribd), and many others. It’s amazing to see how many of those friendships persist today, and even more amazing how well many of those companies are doing.

Coming back from one particular YC dinner, Emmett and I were discussing strategic ideas for Kiko, and I remember telling Emmett an idea that popped into my head: what if you could hear an audio feed on the web of our discussion? Wouldn’t that be interesting to other like-minded entrepreneurial types? We kept going, and eventually the idea morphed into a video feed. Then it became a live video feed. Then it became a continuous live video feed that followed someone around 24/7. Then it had chat, and a community built around watching this live show, which was now a new form of entertainment. I was hooked.

I couldn’t stop talking about the idea. I mentioned it at YC dinners and to other friends. I even came up with a perfect name for it: Justin.tv. On one trip to DC, I told my Dad and my college friend Michael Seibel what I was thinking. Eventually, in-between drinking sessions, we thought of a brilliant idea for divesting ourselves of Kiko, which is a story for another day. After that, Emmett and I were coming up with other startup ideas (I guess we got excited about staying in the industry after all). One particular favorite was the idea of a web app that would ingest your blog’s RSS feed and then allow you to layout and print physical magazines from it. Excitedly, we drove one afternoon to Paul Graham’s house to pitch it.

We explained the idea to Paul and Robert Morris, who just happened to be at the house visiting. I vaguely recall there also being a “this will kill academic publishing” angle, although I can’t figure out how that sensibly fits in now. Paul didn’t particularly like the idea: he didn’t think people would use it. “Well,” he said, “what else do you have?”

I said the only thing I could think of: “Justin.tv.”

Because it was something I was clearly passionate about, and because creating a new form of entertainment was clearly a big market (if you could invent one!), Paul was actually into it. Robert’s addition to the conversation was “I’ll fund that just to see you make a fool of yourself.” Emmett and I walked out of there with a check for $50,000.

Six months later, we’d recruited two other cofounders (Kyle Vogt, our hardware hacker, who we convinced to drop out of MIT on a temporary leave of absence, and Michael Seibel, my college friend from DC, who became our “producer”). We built a site with a video player and chat and two prototype cameras that captured, encoded and streamed live video over cell data networks, negotiated with a CDN to carry our live video traffic, and raised an additional couple hundred thousand dollars. Our plan? Launch the show and see what happens.

Now, let me just tell you why this was a bad idea:
  • We didn’t have a plan. We loosely figured if the show became popular we could sell sponsorships or advertising, but we didn’t have a plan to scale the number of shows, nor did we understand what our marginal costs on streaming, customer acquisition, or actually selling ads were.
  • We didn’t understand the industry. We didn’t know what kinds of content advertisers would pay for. We didn’t have good insight into what kind of content people wanted to watch, either.
  • We relied on proprietary hardware that we were going to mass-produce ourselves. Smart angels told us to drop the hardware and figure out how to do it with commodity equipment, but we wouldn’t listen because we thought hardware would be easy (or at least, doable). Ironically, months after we were told this we switched to using a laptop.
  • We were trying to build a “hits” based business without any experience making hits. We knew a lot about websites, but little about content creation. Smart VCs (who took our calls because Paul referred us) told us as much: nobody really likes investing in hits based businesses, because it requires the continual generation of new hits to be successful (instead of, say, building a platform like eBay or Google whose success is built on masses of regular users).
How did we get as far as we did?
  • We were passionate. We honestly believed we could create a new form of reality entertainment. Put to the side that we had no experience with creating video (or any kind of content), by God, we were going to make this work.
  • Early stage investing is often about the people, not the idea. Paul has said as much about what he looks for. As two-time YC founders he knew that we worked well together and even if we were working on something totally inane we were going to stick it out with the company and iterate until we found a business model.
  • We sold the shit out of it. Everyone we knew was excited for Justin.tv. Why? Because our excitement was infectious. That’s how we got Kyle to drop out of school. That’s how we got Michael to quit his job and move across the country.
Ultimately, the show failed. But all told, I’m thankful every day that things went the way they did. Why?
  • We built a strong team. The four of us started, and the four of us all still have leadership roles in the company. Along the way we recruited the smartest engineers and best product designers we could find.
  • We were willing to learn, and to pivot. After quickly realizing the initial show wasn’t a sustainable model, we decided to go the platform route, and built the world’s largest live video platform (both on the web and in our mobile apps, which have millions of downloads).
  • It got us started. Some people wait until the stars are aligned before they jump in. Maybe that’s the right move, but plenty of businesses get started with something that seems implausible, stupid, or not-a-real-business but turn into something of value (think Groupon). If we hadn’t started then, would we have later?
Today, I’m more excited about Justin.tv than I’ve been at any time since we launched the initial platform. Why? We’re taking everything we’ve gathered and learned over the past four and half years building the largest live video platform on the Web (17 million monthly unique visitors in Dec according to comScore’s MediaMetrix), and applying it to tackle a new generation of problems in mobile video. Our world class web and mobile engineering team, all of our product development knowledge, our substantial, scaled video infrastructure, and everything we’ve learned about building engineering teams has all been put to work on a new app that we think is going to change everything.

Our new app is called Socialcam, but that’s another story.

03 February 2011

Verizon iPhone versus AT&T iPhone: CNET's data winner is... (video)

AT&T iPhone versus Verizon iPhone (Credit: CNET)
Faster, sexier, more reliable signal. That's the hype propping up the Apple iPhone 4 for Verizon at the expense of rival carrier AT&T. But is the iPhone really that much better on Verizon than on AT&T? The answer so far: absolutely.
To test the phones, CNET Senior Editor Kent German and I traipsed all over San Francisco to conduct our field testing showdown between the AT&T and Verizon iPhones. We compared signal strength, upload and download speeds, and load times between the iPhones on the two networks.
In addition to the results below, you can also check out more connectivity tests, and this roundup of all things Verizon iPhone.



The tests

We ran four tests each in four locations that have given us trouble in the past on multiple networks.
First, we checked the number of bars that appeared in the signal meter. We know that bars are an arbitrary measurement because they fluctuate so often and don't always translate into real-world connectivity. Still, for many people they are a key indicator of service.
Next, we used the Root Metrics iPhone App to measure signal strength and upload and download speeds. Third, we uploaded a photo to Facebook--the same picture for each round for both phones. Lastly, we loaded the GiantBomb.com Web site.

The locations

CNET's garage served as the first location, a natural fit since the above-ground parking lot is constructed from thick, signal-blocking concrete. Next we drove over to Treasure Island, a slug of man-shaped landfill mounds in the middle of the San Francisco Bay that's removed from clusters of cell towers. Next we stopped on a busy downtown street in the Financial District, where tall buildings and throngs of smartphone users add up to often iffy service. Finally, we climbed into the Twin Peaks neighborhood, a high roost that's home to a dead zone for multiple carriers that's confounded Kent time and again.

How they fared

And the winner is...
CNET GARAGE
TREASURE ISLAND
FINANCIAL DISTRICT
TWIN PEAKS
Download/Upload
Verizon
Verizon
Verizon
Verizon
Photo uploading
Verizon
Verizon
Verizon
AT&T
Load a Web site
Verizon
AT&T
Verizon
Verizon
*We omitted the "bars" test because that indicator doesn't reflect performance testing.
Verizon devotees scored big points as the iPhone on its network consistently outperformed the AT&T iPhone in all but two tests.
However, before you fly Big Red's banner, keep in mind that these results are indicative of our particular experience. Results in your area may differ, and they may also change over time. Although AT&T's HSPA 3G network is technically faster than Verizon's EV-DO, the results don't always align. Coverage depends heavily on your exact location and even the time of day.
Additionally, Verizon was supporting very few iPhones at the time we tested the phone--performance factors could very well change in San Francisco as well once the number of iPhone users grows on Verizon's network. Yes, there are other smartphones on both networks that impact data load, but Verizon could be gaining a much hiegher percentage of high-data users in the near future if new customers flock to the iPhone--either because they're switching from another network or because they're switching from a feature phone. Either way, we plan to revisit testing in several months when there are more Verizon iPhones on the market.


The detailed results

iPhone versus iPhone
CNET GARAGE
TREASURE ISLAND
FINANCIAL DISTRICT
TWIN PEAKS
Test 1: Number of bars
AT&T 4-5 4-5 5 1-5
Verizon 5 4-5 5 2-5
Test 2: Download/upload speeds*
AT&T Download: 40Kbps
Upload: 28 Kbps
Download: 189Kbps
Upload: 24 Kbps
Download: 116Kbps
Upload: 173 Kbps
Download: 120Kbps
Upload: 130 Kbps
Verizon Download: 518Kbps
Upload: 149 Kbps
Download: 440Kbps
Upload: 66 Kbps
Download: 651Kbps
Upload: 55 Kbps
Download: 543Kbps
Upload: 174 Kbps
Test 3: Photo uploading
AT&T 12 seconds 28 seconds 15 seconds 4 seconds
Verizon 8 seconds 9 seconds 8 seconds 5 seconds
Test 4: Loading a Web site
AT&T 33 seconds 28 seconds 17 seconds 12 seconds
Verizon 10 seconds 66 seconds 12 seconds 11 seconds
*Measurements taken from Root Metrics test. As we mentioned, AT&T bested Verizon in just two of our iPhone tests--loading a Web site faster at Treasure Island (the Verizon iPhone hung for over a minute) and uploading a photo to Facebook from our Twin Peaks test spot. In all other tests, Verizon came out ahead, but not always by much.
Verizon blazed through AT&T's upload and download speeds, according to the Root Metrics tool, with the largest performance chasm taking place in CNET's garage. But more important than the results of a diagnostic tool are the real-world upload and download speeds we conducted using Facebook and Giantbomb.com, and in these tests AT&T's iPhone fell less behind.

18 January 2011

Reports: Comcast-NBCU deal near approval

The deal giving Comcast a controlling stake in NBC Universal could finally be approved by the FCC, followed by the U.S. Department of Justice, as early as this week, according to reports.

According to reports in The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and Hollywood news site The Wrap citing anonymous sources, the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department will finally pave the way for the Comcast-NBC Universal deal to close by the end of the month.

The $37 billion merger between the companies has been a long time coming. The deal, which was first announced in 2009, provides Comcast with a 51 percent controlling stake in NBC Universal. General Electric will retain the remaining 49 percent. When the deal was first announced, the companies hoped to have it accepted by regulatory bodies at the end of 2010. However, over the course of the last year, the companies faced increasing concerns that their merger might unfairly impact competing content providers and harm consumers.

The Department of Justice, which is also evaluating the merger with regard to antitrust rules, is also expected to vote to approve the joint venture. Both the Justice Department and that FCC stamps of approval are needed before the deal to form the joint venture can close.

Even though the FCC is expected to approve the merger, the commission is likely to impose conditions.

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) and the Washington Post have reported that the new joint venture will be required to share NBC content with Internet video providers, such as Netflix, if these companies are getting content from competitors, such as CBS or Walt Disney.

The FCC is also expected to require Comcast to abide by new Net neutrality rules set to take effect later this year, the newspapers said. The agreement would require Comcast to adhere to these rules even if the rules established by the FCC, which the FCC passed separately late last year, are challenged in court.

Most of the FCC's conditions will last seven years, somewhat longer than other conditions imposed on companies involved in previous merger approvals. One exception is a condition requiring Comcast to offer $49.95 a month standalone Internet service to consumers.

The Justice Department is also expected to impose some conditions on the merger. For example, the Justice Department will impose a restriction that won't allow the joint venture to retaliate against its competitors or partners. The Justice Department imposed a similar "anti-retaliatory" provision in the merger between Ticketmaster and Live Nation, the Washington Post reported. In that merger, the Justice Department said that the new ticket company couldn't retaliate against any venue owner that chooses to use another company's ticketing services or promotional services.

For Comcast and NBC, this would mean that the joint venture would not be able punish its partners who do business with Comcast's or NBC's competitors.

Last February, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker fielded questions from congressional subcommittees over their proposed arrangement. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was one of the more outspoken critics, saying that his former career with NBC gave him reason to be concerned.

"I worked for NBC for many years," Franken said during a hearing. "And what I know from my previous career has given me reason to be concerned--let me rephrase that, very concerned--about the potential merger of Comcast and NBC Universal."

Those hearings were followed up by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) writing a letter to the FCC in August saying that it had a responsibility to ensure consumers were being protected. He was especially concerned that Comcast would take freely available NBC programming on services like Hulu and make them exclusively available on the provider's TV Everywhere service, which is available only to its subscribers. (Boucher was defeated in the November election.)

Those complaints were echoed by two members of Congress last month in separate letters to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said in his letter to Genachowski that "the joint venture would give Comcast the power, should it choose to exercise it, to deny programming to its cable, satellite, or online competitors or charge inflated prices for it."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) told Genachowski that a merger between the companies could "trigger significant changes in the way consumers access video programming, in the way independent programmers distribute their works, and in the way all video distributors compete for customers." However, even with those issues, both Markey and Waxman told Genachowski that they wanted to see the merger get approved, but not without imposing strict conditions first.