4 ms·

Isn't TechCrunch one of the first investors in UStream.tv, the competitor to Justin.tv with almost as many users and live streams? Why do they choose JTV to wri

by vlad 17y ago

Isn't TechCrunch one of the first investors in UStream.tv, the competitor to Justin.tv with almost as many users and live streams? Why do they choose JTV to write about instead of the possibility that anybody could attempt to broadcast anything on any live video web site? You can also find minutes and minutes of NFL (professional football) video on YouTube right now that have been posted for years and years as an example, and YouTube is about 5 years old and is owned by Google and should have even better technology than Justin.tv, a two year old startup, right? I would understand the point if other live video sites (and static video sites like YouTube) had better technology to detect this stuff, but they don't. This is like complaining about Apple for rejecting lots of developers during the app store beta when other mobile companies didn't even have anything similar. Surely, they could have hired $6/hr interns to approve more developers!

wgj 17y ago
A commenter on TC makes the same point: "I think Techcrunch is displaying some significant bias here. First of all lets get the fact straight – one of Techcrunch’s advertisers and partners is Ustream a company that is fighting neck and neck with Justin.tv. Ustream has paid Techcrunch as an advertiser, streams their events for free, and has even setup a live cam in their office. I think Michael Arrington should come clean in any story written on Techcrunch where a competing company has this level of connection with his blog. Secondly, Justin.tv is taking a lead in the industry to try to prevent copyrighted content on the site. This story has done nothing to look at the other sites in the industry and compare Justin.tv’s efforts with theirs. Lastly, Fox a big content company, has already stated publicly that Justin.tv has taken a leadership position on this front. I think this story is unfortunate for Justin.tv – but I wonder why Robin didn’t write the same story about Youtube."

by vlad 17y ago

wgj 17y ago

A commenter on TC makes the same point: "I think Techcrunch is displaying some significant bias here. First of all lets get the fact straight – one of Techcrunch’s advertisers and partners is Ustream a company that is fighting neck and neck with Justin.tv. Ustream has paid Techcrunch as an advertiser, streams their events for free, and has even setup a live cam in their office. I think Michael Arrington should come clean in any story written on Techcrunch where a competing company has this level of connection with his blog. Secondly, Justin.tv is taking a lead in the industry to try to prevent copyrighted content on the site. This story has done nothing to look at the other sites in the industry and compare Justin.tv’s efforts with theirs. Lastly, Fox a big content company, has already stated publicly that Justin.tv has taken a leadership position on this front. I think this story is unfortunate for Justin.tv – but I wonder why Robin didn’t write the same story about Youtube."