El acceso al webcast de las conferencias del encuentro, que basará sobre Las Competencias Educativas Básicas, se establece a través del sitio desarrollado por Veiss Comunicación específicamente para la retransmisión de las conferencias.

Para seguir las conferencias tan sólo es necesario disponer de conexión a Internet y el reproductor Real Player.

What is incredibly surprising though was what polled as number two: Someone Else.

The margin between the last 4 choices was not large by any means, but with Yahoo! Live and Ustream.tv among the contenders you would have thought that at least one of them would have won out over none of the above. The fact this isn't the case presents a puzzling question about user perceptions on the current state of play with online video.

As I commented on their recap post this evening ("YouTube Will Win Live Video?"), I'd be quite interested in knowing whether respondents had someone specific in mind when selecting this option, whether they doubted anyone could effectively capture and maintain the market lead, or perhaps were hoping none of the above would come out ahead.

With the exception of perhaps Microsoft, the only other possible entrants into this field that come to mind would be from the realm of proprietary webconferencing software. Most notably this includes Adobe, whose Connect software offers the clearest video and audio quality I've seen so far.

While they do currently offer hosting options, Connect's suite of whiteboard and desktop sharing tools (among others) places it firmly within the category of enterprise business solutions. That's such a far cry from YouTube's target market, that there is virtually no overlap in the user base.

All other providers that I can think of have made no visible moves towards this market. Skype might well have the server capacity, but doesn't seem to have the inclination; Elluminate already offers hosted web conferencing, but is well and truly geared towards the eLearning niche.

The point being, I cannot think of a single company (high profile or otherwise) that is both capable and interested in tackling this market. In terms of the meaning of "Someone Else", this either means the respondents didn't think anyone can sustain the market, or they just don't want it to be YouTube.

References:

• "The Daily Poll: Live Video – Who Will Win?", Mashable, 29 February 2008
• "YouTube Will Win Live Video?", Mashable, 29 February 2008

Listen Geo TV Audio

To accomplish this, there have been several services, both MLM and traditional, to offer streaming of videos, either directly onto your web site, or can be played by linking from your site. Unfortunately, that’s where most discoveries of the concept end, with the conclusion of “Here is how I can stream a video onto my site or into my email! Cool!”

What is missed is the content. This simple understanding of just half the process assumes that the content can be successfully created using a simple (cheap) video camera held in one hand, pointing at their head.

How is this bad? Well, by asking, I know that the words, “I want to thank the academy…” is not in your future vocabulary.

"I contend that CONTENT QUALITY is just as important as DELIVERY!"

To illustrate: Take a napkin. Write your name and phone number in pencil and hand it to your next prospective contact. Don’t draw attention to your ‘business card’ and how it’s different than theirs. Just DELIVER your contact information and proceed to try to make a close.

What’s wrong? Your information delivery was the same as using your slick card or brochure, but you were perceived as unprofessional, amateurish and probably soon to be out of business; Because your CONTENT was poor.

To complete the presentation of video on your web site, you MUST have professional content to deliver. I’m not talking about hiring Steve or Frank to direct. I’m suggesting one of the many videographers that have the camera, editing and experience to project your image in a professional, superior format.

www.vipglobal.biz