Yesterday I posted some critical comments on some of the VoIP players, notably Jajah and Rebtel, although I was also critical of Gradn Central. I'll get back to Grand Central in a post of its own. Right now I'm thinking about how to fail or succeed with video. And I'm thinking in the contexts described in that post - adding value vs. commodity and simplicity vs. complexity.

There aren't good apples-to-apples comparisons that I think fit, but let's just talk video in broad terms. Who's doing something that works, and who's doing something that's pointless and just so yesterday it's a yawner.

I've said SightSpeed works more than once or twice, but let me elaborate. It just works. It's simple. Non-technical users can have SightSpeed up and running in minutes. Video mail. Video blog/web posts. Multi-party video calls. VoIP integration with the PSTN. Commitment to standards. All the right moves.

There are shortcomings to be sure. I've been working with the SightSpeed team to be able to post a video blog directly rather than via a link. It seems so simple that I'm frustrated it hasn't happened yet. PSTN dial in numbers aren't yet available in my area code. The IM interface could integrate with a bit more elegance. It feels awkward much of the time.

In short, SightSpeed isn't perfect. On the other hand, if memory serves, they have a huge staff of twelve. It isn't perfect, but it is phenomenal. And every release brings significant, tangible improvement. Too many solution providers make incremental changes that aren't worth mention. Not so with SightSpeed.

They're gaining momentum and traction. Little things that add up. PC Mag points to them repeatedly.  Now we learn that MTV has been using SightSpeed on the Video Wall used in Total Request Live to get viewers to be a part of the show.  As Andy said, MTV put the V in Video. And they're quietly adopting the best in breed solution. Would anyone with an interest in video discount MTV's viewpoint?

And Jon Arnold points out - "This demographic will totally get what SightSpeed is all about, and it's an ideal place to showcase the technology. This is a great company to watch, folks."

In short, they're doing all the right things to lead to unified communications. SightSpeed is an example of what Web 2.0, Voice 2.0 and unified communications is all about.

Now let's look at video from a completely different angle. Let's look at someone doing all the wrong things and destined to failure. YouTube. Sure, the failure will be spectacular, but it's still a model based on little-to-no-value commodity.  While he's backed away from some of his stronger predictions, I think Mark Cuban was dead on the money in The Coming Dramatic Decline of Youtube posted a week or so ago. Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks, and is an example of a CEO 2.0 mindset. He blogs. He posts opinions...says what he thinks. He's engaged. And he knows business, even web business. Here's his opening -

What is it about youtube.com that has made it so successful so quickly? Is it the amazing quality of user generated content ? Is it a broadband fueled obsession with watching short videos ?

No & No.

Youtube's rapid ascension to the top of the traffic ranks can be attributed to two and only two reasons:

1. Free Hosting from any 3rd Party site
Hey, why pay for bandwidth for a video if you dont have to ? A blog, a myspace page, an email, any website. Just throw in some html in Youtube.com foots the bill for bandwidth. Sure you are limited by size of file, but so what. Just chop it up into parts 1 through N. Its fast, easy and free.

Come to our website and use our video hosting services, we can party like its 1999 all over again !

2. Copyrighted music and video.
I dont have a count, but i bet Daniel Powters' Bad Day is attached to some video snippet of every sporting event ever played , with links sent to fans of every losing team. PIrates season, You had a Bad Day. Spurs vs Mavs. Mavs vs Suns, Mavs vs Heat , Yankees vs Red Sox, etc, etc, etc. Bad Day, Bad Day , Bad Day. If Daniel had a nickel for every time his song was used in a YouTube sports video, he would be a much richer man.

You really need to follow the link and read the whole thing, but let me also share his conclusions -

So you can pretty well bet that every and any copyright owner is going to be jumping up and down telling Youtube to remove every bit of content with any copyrighted material. The double worse news for Youtube is that wont be easy. How are you going to tell Barry that he has to take down the video of Aunt Sally getting her groove on to Long Tall Sally, and Uncle Willie doing the Hand Jive at his Bar Mitvah ? That those are both copyrighted songs that Cousin Brucie, the DJ played, and we encouraged you to break the law when we made it so easy to post them and send links to your entire family ?

How are they even going to find every instance of copyrighted music behind some personal videos ? They will have to. And it wont be easy.

So where's the value? Is YouTube anything more than a variation on a theme? Napster 2.0? Where's the sustainable business? Where's the future? What's the plan for survivability when 80% of the content gets yanked by the lawyers? And what's the value in a transient video that gets viewed 60,000 times really?

YouTube is a skyrocket. The oohs and ahhs of viral enthusiasm have the crowd all wound up in anticipation. Sure it's popular. It's colorful. But like a skyrocket, it's headed to a climactic explosion, and in the end. nothing will be left but the acrid smell of smoke, quickly dispersed by the winds of economic value.


Technorati Tags: SightSpeed, YouTube