Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Video Site 'Soapbox' Disappointing
nieske writes "CNet reviews Microsoft's new video site, Soapbox. Though browsing and uploading is easy, CNet isn't very enthusiastic about the beta, mostly blaming this on the fact that Soapbox has nothing more to offer than other video sites.
From the article: 'It's a slightly better sharing service than YouTube in some small technical ways, but it doesn't help users make money from their content like Revver does; it doesn't have granular privacy controls like Vox; it won't post directly into blogs for you like VideoEgg; and it won't show videos from other networks like Yahoo Video. Given Microsoft's position in the video sharing market (dead last), I expected a more aggressive product.'"
This is very similar to their traditional software market that they have come to dominate.
This reviewer is the minority of computer users. He is a technically elite individual. There are more regular average people than there are technically elite. Microsoft is probably aiming for the market of older people who shoot home videos on their digital camera and want a site they can understand -- to hell with unneeded functionality. I think there is a large market of people out there and I think that Microsoft is attempting to enter the online video market through this demographic.
I added a 120MB digital camera video to Google Video last week and the process was way too complex for my mom. Yet, I'm sure that she and my sisters will want to share their home videos with the rest of the family for free. And they're not looking to link it to their blogs (they don't know what that word means) or turn a buck on ad revenue. Playing to the lowest common denominator will get you very far in America.
Just something to think about before you laugh at Microsoft and claim they'll always be dead last.
Since the review so heavily criticized Soapbox, what did the reviewer think Microsoft should have added to put it ahead of the competition? I mean, if you add the same functionality (say, ad revenue), you're not exactly putting yourself ahead and you're just doing what's been done. Is there anything left to be done to make your online video site "the best"?
My work here is dung.
This is no suprise from Microsoft. Copy the basics to test the waters... then throw money behind the project to dominate.
Until it can automatically subtitle in seven different languages, help you create Matrix-like effects, split the atom, and turn my crap home movies into Oscar contenders, I won't be satisfied.
Get in there with a product that *just about* does what it says on the tin, then use your squillions of $$$ to stifle the competition.
Since Apple hasn't come out with a video sharing service yet, MS doesn't have a template for what theirs will look like.
Currently MS is "embracing". I.e. copying what the competition has.
Extending comes later when they got the leverage to set the "standard".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Using Windows Live for authentication and a button inside WMP for one a one click upload like image shack would seriously give them some leverage.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but if I was building that service that is what I would do.
They have the platform there, why not use it.
I'd be rather pissed off at the current management of the company.
Microsoft has traditionally been able to compete in a given market by
sheer size. The XBox is a good example - they sucked it initially,
then basically poured money and effort into it till they became a dominant
player in the market.
But now they're trying to become dominant in everything - search, portable music players/services, online video streaming, etc. Microsoft can certainly dominate
one market with brute force, perhaps two or three. But at some point, the brute
force method just isn't possible anymore - it eats far too many resources. And
from the looks of it, MS doesn't seem to be getting any better at initial execution.
As late to the game as they were with online video and search engines, they needed
to have a "wow" product. Instead, they turned out their typical "meh" product.
Eventually, they won't be able to spend their way out of the holes they dig.
Plus, you really don't know what's going on in the background. I mean, usually that tactic is what follows the release of the software. I'm guessing Microsoft has someone in mind to provide ads, storage, etc. The fact that it's not something you can incorporate into blog sites is also a little evidence they won't play ball with anyone.
As a pretty avid Linux user, it's been my opinion that both MS and Apple aim to do this
My work here is dung.
Why is it a requirement to be 'better' to criticise? Im a terrible golfer, does that mean when a star shanks it into the rough im not allowed to say that its a bad shot?
Microsoft has only just started, and they managed to produce what took youTube well over a year to achieve.
Certainly it isn't quite there. There will be a few bugs to sort out, and a few issues to resolve while they deal with technology to prevent users for flagrantly stealing music tracks and then selling them as videos, but Microsoft will get there. And it will be the best.
Why do I think this? Because Microsoft care about Quality.
They already have the worlds finest OS and the best office environment. Their search technology is second to none, and their entire online presense is increasing in leaps and bounds. Who could cope in today's online world without MSN messsenger or Outlook? They will soon dominate online videos, and then we'll see an amazing imprvement in this industry segment.
Why does Microsoft feel the need to copy every single "new thing" out there? I realize they are incapable of innovation or independent thought, but the past 10 years for MS has been nothing but showing up to a party already in progress shouting "HEY GUYS, WE'RE HERE!!" With the Zume (after the DOA "Plays Anywhere" program) playing catch-up to the iPod and now Soapbox trying to play with YouTube and Google Video it's getting nauseatingly blatant. Tens of thousands of employees and still no innovation. Pretty depressing really.
rooooar