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.'"

Comments

Microsoft & the Reviewer ... in General

[eldavojohn]

Given Microsoft's position in the video sharing market (dead last), I expected a more aggressive product.

Well, this is Microsoft you are critiquing. I mean, what have they traditionally aimed for? Functionality? Cross product compliance? Not really ... In fact, from what I've read and seen, Soapbox looks like some classic Microsoft action. They aim for ease of use (easy uploading and browsing) and visual "bells & whistles" while using traditional tactics to stifle/strong arm the competition.

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"?

Obvious why it's not top notch

[Alcimedes]

Since Apple hasn't come out with a video sharing service yet, MS doesn't have a template for what theirs will look like.

Give them a chance.

[91degrees]

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.