4 ms·

Really, what went wrong was that Joost didn't get the content they needed. Sure, one can quibble that they didn't act like a startup or that people didn't want

by mdasen 17y ago

Really, what went wrong was that Joost didn't get the content they needed. Sure, one can quibble that they didn't act like a startup or that people didn't want to download a player and wanted to use their browser, but really it just didn't get content. Hulu, while not taking anything away from their impressive execution and reliability, owes most of its success to Fox, NBC and others putting loads of content on it.

marksutherland 17y ago
"In the end, however, it all boiled down to a lack of content." Last sentence in the article and a fitting conclusion.
- neilc 17y ago
  Except it's not really a "fitting conclusion" to the article: almost all the other factors the article cites are irrelevant or inconsequential. "Too big, too fast", "Too spread out", and so on are just quibbles: the fundamental problem was a lack of compelling content. The rest is just incidental, IMHO.
nailer 17y ago
Isn't Joost older? Shouldn't Joost have negotiated for rights to that content? Ultimately this was the difference between legit Napster and iTunes Music Store. Jobs made the negotiations, got big media to feel comfortable and got the damned content.
- mdasen 17y ago
  Founded in March 2007, Hulu is co-owned by NBC Universal, News Corp. and Providence Equity Partners. That's from Hulu's media info page. I think it boils down to: the networks trust themselves with their content. They aren't going to trust an outside company founded by people who made their name of pirated content (the Joost founders are the Kazaa people). Frankly, why give someone else the profits when you can create your own content distribution system? Hulu gives them both the control and the revenues. Note: I'm not making a moral judgement on pirated content, merely explaining a possible thought process of the networks.
  - icey 17y ago
    Hulu did a really good job with it as well. I think if Hulu's execution was poor, Joost would have had a much better chance at survival.

by mdasen 17y ago

marksutherland 17y ago

"In the end, however, it all boiled down to a lack of content." Last sentence in the article and a fitting conclusion.

neilc 17y ago
Except it's not really a "fitting conclusion" to the article: almost all the other factors the article cites are irrelevant or inconsequential. "Too big, too fast", "Too spread out", and so on are just quibbles: the fundamental problem was a lack of compelling content. The rest is just incidental, IMHO.

nailer 17y ago

Isn't Joost older? Shouldn't Joost have negotiated for rights to that content? Ultimately this was the difference between legit Napster and iTunes Music Store. Jobs made the negotiations, got big media to feel comfortable and got the damned content.

mdasen 17y ago
Founded in March 2007, Hulu is co-owned by NBC Universal, News Corp. and Providence Equity Partners. That's from Hulu's media info page. I think it boils down to: the networks trust themselves with their content. They aren't going to trust an outside company founded by people who made their name of pirated content (the Joost founders are the Kazaa people). Frankly, why give someone else the profits when you can create your own content distribution system? Hulu gives them both the control and the revenues. Note: I'm not making a moral judgement on pirated content, merely explaining a possible thought process of the networks.
- icey 17y ago
  Hulu did a really good job with it as well. I think if Hulu's execution was poor, Joost would have had a much better chance at survival.