First of all my apologizies for the lengthy explanation you'll find below. However I it´s necessary for getting the full overview of this interesting issue. I´m afraid your desktop experience will become increasingly less relevant over time. Let me start explaining this with 2 widely known behaviour patterns of computer users. 1: There's a direct correlation between the time a service takes to load and the traffic it generates or in other words quicker access provides a competitive advantage. It´s the main reason Google decided a while ago to put faster loading sites on higher on their list of sponsered links even when they're paying less. Now because accessing a service by web these days means as much as hitting the url tab it's nearly impossible for a desktop app that offers a simalar service to outcompete its rival. Unless your running a mainframe it will take you way more time before you have the same access. If you add the time to download, install and run the app the first time this case becomes even stronger. 2: Besides the web being the ultimate common platform, be it because of support for with linux/mac/windows and increasingly for android/symbian/win. mobile/iPhone as well, Webdesign in general follows certain rules that make it easy and therefore quicker to understand a websites in general. On the other hand understanding a desktop app can be a frustrating thing from time to time. Because most desktop lacking social ecosystem features, it makes it also more difficult to get and give feedback. The unneccesary time spent makes it that more compelling for user to look for an alternative on the web. Now while the desktop has still very strong advantages over its web alternatives: -Desktop apps in general have far better and quicker access to (local) storaged files. -Desktop apps can manipulate data better than web apps in general -Desktop apps can use a bigger share of the available memory without getting unstable. In comparison simple plugins like Flash or Acrobat reader can bring you far quicker into trouble when they ask to much memory. These advantages are already starting to erode... Apart from the hyped cloud ecosystem which promises better access to your personal files, in the next years something even more interesting will be coming our way, HTML5. HTML 5 (www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/) promises more contextual websites (which makes them better to understand for search engines and other services), offering possibilties of manipulating the data found on the website, offering the possibility of offline access (like google gears now does) and the promising feature of loading audio/video and other content simultaneously with the rest of your website due to using the new canvas technology. HTML5 therefore promises quicker and more more stable access to websites and therefore not only makes it possible to access more computer memory without issues of failing but also lowers the initial systems requirements (e.g. for mobile platforms) to make use of all its features.. Now although we're still a few years away (the first version is expected at the end of 2010) from seeing this happening, browsers like Safari, Firefox and Google Chrome already are starting to implemente parts of this new standard. It isn't anymore a question of if but when we'll see more sophisticated web services launched that share the advantages currently only the desktop can offer. Therefore over time it will become more attractive for companies to offer their services via the web, because they don´t have to compromise on the desktop experience. In fact the companies that are already migrating will be most likely to reap some of the web´s benefits: -The article found in your post states that "The BBC found iPlayer traffic increase exponentially after it added its web-based Flash version to its Windows app" -You´ll find also that currently webbased livecasting services like Justin.tv generate far more traffic then desktop based services like Joost, bbtv, etc... Joost by the way solved the compromising P2P issues by requiring the user to install a P2P web plugin that runs on the background. Now finally how do the points of above explain the massive surge popularity of your own desktop app these past months. I think this has everything to do with the uniqueness and quality of service: -The ability quick access to and shifting between channels makes the pattern of user behavior to choose for fast access actually work in favor of the desktop -The greatest quantity of channels available compared to other P2PTV apps/ websites I´ve used Also because TV overall is a pretty passive user experience it doesn´t require the multitude of social whizzles you'd require on the web.

Posted by Maximilian sandmann at 15:31 02 October 2008

Wow that looks confusing. Allow me a retry............................ First of all my apologizies for the lengthy explanation you'll find below. However I think it´s necessary for getting the full overview of this interesting issue. I´m afraid your desktop experience will become increasingly less relevant over time. Let me start explaining this with 2 widely known behaviour patterns of computer users. 1: There's a direct correlation between the time a service takes to load and the traffic it generates or in other words quicker access provides a competitive advantage. It´s the main reason Google decided a while ago to put faster loading sites on higher on their list of sponsered links even when they're paying less. Now because accessing a service by web these days means as much as hitting the url tab it's nearly impossible for a desktop app that offers a simalar service to outcompete its rival. Unless your running a mainframe it will take you way more time before you have the same access. If you add the time to download, install and run the app the first time this case becomes even stronger. 2: Besides the web being the ultimate common platform, be it because of support for with linux/mac/windows and increasingly for android/symbian/win. mobile/iPhone as well, Webdesign in general follows certain rules that make it easy and therefore quicker to understand a websites in general. On the other hand understanding a desktop app can be a frustrating thing from time to time. Because most desktop apps lack the social ecosystem you'll find in almost every webservice, it becomes more difficult for users to get and give feedback. Therefore this unneccesary time spent makes it all the more compelling for users to look for alternatives on the web.

Posted by Maximilian sandmann at 15:44 02 October 2008

While the desktop has still very strong advantages over its web alternatives: -Desktop apps in general have far better and quicker access to (local) storaged files. -Desktop apps can manipulate data better than web apps in general -Desktop apps can use a bigger share of the available memory without getting unstable. In comparison simple plugins like Flash or Acrobat reader can bring you far quicker into trouble when they ask to much memory. these advantages are already starting to erode... Apart from the hyped cloud ecosystem which promises better access to your personal files, in the next years something even more interesting will be coming our way, HTML5. HTML 5 (www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/) promises more contextual websites (which makes them better to understand for search engines and other services), offering possibilties of manipulating the data found on the website, offering the possibility of offline access (like google gears now does) and the promising feature of loading audio/video and other content simultaneously with the rest of your website due to using the new canvas technology. HTML5 therefore promises quicker and more more stable access to websites and therefore not only makes it possible to access more computer memory without issues of failing but also lowers the initial systems requirements (e.g. for mobile platforms) to make use of all its features.. Now although we're still a few years away (the first version is expected at the end of 2010) from seeing this happening, browsers like Safari, Firefox and Google Chrome already are starting to implement parts of this new standard. It isn't anymore a question of if but when we'll see more sophisticated web services launched that share the advantages currently only the desktop can offer. Therefore over time it will become more attractive for companies to offer their services via the web, because they don´t have to compromise on the desktop experience. In fact the companies that are already migrating will be most likely to reap some of the web´s benefits:

Posted by Maximilian sandmann at 15:52 02 October 2008

-The article found in your post states that "The BBC found iPlayer traffic increase exponentially after it added its web-based Flash version to its Windows app" -You´ll find also that currently webbased livecasting services like Justin.tv generate far more traffic then desktop based services like Joost, bbtv, etc... Joost by the way solved the compromising P2P issues by requiring the user to install a P2P web plugin that runs on the background. Now finally how do the points of above explain the massive surge popularity of your own desktop app these past months. I think this has everything to do with the uniqueness and quality of service: -The ability quick access to and shifting between channels makes the pattern of user behavior to choose for fast access actually work in favor of the desktop -The greatest quantity of channels available compared to other P2PTV apps/ websites I´ve used Also because TV overall is a pretty passive user experience it doesn´t require the multitude of social whizzles you find on the web..................................................................... Instead of asking "to download or not to download", I think the real question should be whether your desktop app will still be able to compete when this loses this uniqueness, because similar servics are is offered on the web .

Posted by Maximilian sandmann at 15:56 02 October 2008

Also the ongoing popularity of desktop dinosaurs like IM and (candidate dinosaur) Skype lies in the first place in their very nature: Communicating and being able staying online 24/7 to comply to the social pressure of our enviroment. Although I don´t think their existence is being threathened right now, this case will become different over time. I'm already letting the Gmail in my browser run 95% of the time. Like other webmail sites Gmail offers the possibility of running a light version of IM in the background. With future leaps in webtechnology it´s easy to visualize more sophisticated applications.......................................... The only question I think remains to be answered is how Microsoft will be making money in a few years time. ADVERTISING, ADVERTISING, ADVERTISING! :P

Posted by Maximilian sandmann at 15:59 02 October 2008

Max, very good points. But I believe there is a trade off. Desktop apps can indeed stretch beyond the browser and the whole point is that certain things are hard, if not impossible, to achieve in the sand box offered by browser based tech. In particular, in the case of Livestation we need to have the P2P classes installed on the device in order to be able to scale. It is our belief that without P2P, live - read synchronous - streaming will not scale. This is not a problem for Joost and iPlayer as they are asynchronous - read on-demand. Subtle but massive difference. Let me give you a sense of the scale of the problem: no-one I know of has managed more than a couple of hundred thousand concurrent streams at once. On-demand platforms - like Joost - can take millions of users downloading the same video with no sweat. Our strategy is to turn the perceived negative of having to download a client into a positive thanks to the wealth of functions and services available which would be hard to achieve on the web (example: realtime two-way comms for alerts/chat/etc). We are going to have a browser plug-in in the future as this is in line with our strategy of becoming the destination for live TV and radio online (web and desktop). But a plug-in still requires a download and sufficient admin privileges to be able to install it. And in 5 years, who knows where we'll be anyway :-) Mat

Posted by Matteo Berlucchi at 11:27 10 October 2008

Matt, although it's easy to conclude that your platform is one of a kind in terms of P2P tech, reading posts like http://thenextweb.org/2008/05/19/flash-player-10-no-more-bandwidth-costs-for-live-video-providers/ make me expect that there will be alternatives a lot sooner than 5 years :D. However, as I said before, I see your strategy of approaching both worlds as the best for now. It probably makes life in the bakery more intense, but nobody can make the point that you´re missing out on something.

Posted by Maximilian sandmann at 16:50 24 October 2008