×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Rolling Out Live Streaming For YouTube

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the have-fun-watching-this-while-comcast-throttles-it dept.

Cloud 60

An anonymous reader writes "YouTube has already live-streamed a number of popular concerts, sporting events, and interviews, but most were one-time deals. Now Google wants to crank it up a notch, and has announced YouTube Live. YouTube Live integrates live streaming capabilities and discovery tools directly into the YouTube platform. From the announcement: 'Today, we'll also start gradually rolling out our live streaming beta platform, which will allow certain YouTube partners with accounts in good standing to stream live content on YouTube. The goal is to provide thousands of partners with the capability to live stream from their channels in the months ahead. In order to ensure a great live stream viewing experience, we'll roll this offering out incrementally over time.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

60 comments

good bye ustream (1)

brian1078 (230523) | about 3 years ago | (#35761046)

n/t

Re:good bye ustream (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35761208)

> Go to youtube.com/live
> Choose a stream
> ADS ADS ADS ADS ADS ADS
> Nope

Re:good bye ustream (1)

brian1078 (230523) | about 3 years ago | (#35761276)

ironically, I'm seeing less ads on youtube right now than ustream.

Re:good bye ustream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35763124)

And I am seeing fewer instances of correct use of the words "less" and "ironically".

Re:good bye ustream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35764492)

> Moron implying ustream is the only live stream service
> Fag

They missed the obvious launch celebration (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35761056)

A live Rick Astley performance.

Re:They missed the obvious launch celebration (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 3 years ago | (#35761624)

Even better: when you try to view the live Rick Astley stream, you get rickrolled with the original video version.

Gabe's GIFT (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about 3 years ago | (#35762294)

I happened to catch one of the live streams about 1hr ago, where a guy from the hak5 podcast was setting up for a show and answering questions.

He quickly grew frustrated and stopped answering questions, concluding "well, the live comments have turned into YouTube comments, so I'm going to focus on setting up". Once again proving Gabe's GIFT [penny-arcade.com].

Is there any advantage (1)

jpenguin (1503021) | about 3 years ago | (#35761190)

of this over justin.tv or ustream.tv? Does it have a desktop client, can it work with quicktime broadcaster for mac?

Live streams and content control (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 3 years ago | (#35761196)

I know youtube doesn't allow adult content but what's to stop random people from streaming porn or something with one those apps that emulates webcams and streams a video. Are they relying on their report button? How fast will that work I wonder.

Re:Live streams and content control (2)

guruevi (827432) | about 3 years ago | (#35761248)

That's why they said partners in good standing. It's not your random dweeb posting emo videos of himself, partner channels have thousands of viewers already and no legitimate reports against them.

Re:Live streams and content control (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 3 years ago | (#35763632)

>> It's not your random dweeb posting emo videos of himself

No, but that's the obvious application of the technology.

Re:Live streams and content control (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#35761312)

I know youtube doesn't allow adult content but what's to stop random people from streaming porn or something with one those apps that emulates webcams and streams a video. Are they relying on their report button? How fast will that work I wonder.

Other streaming sites have this problem with copyrighted sports broadcasts. You can find them all over the internet. Usually they stay up for the full match or even a long part of it before being shutdown - week after week, month after month. If those who want to find them are the only ones aware, they will continue to prosper.

Perhaps Google could create a little program where users could sign up as Freelance Police and report them for money. Get 25 cents each or so and you'll find people willing to spend their time surfing through streams for those which violate terms.

Re:Live streams and content control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35761358)

Perhaps Google could create a little program where users could sign up as Freelance Police and report them for money. Get 25 cents each or so and you'll find people willing to spend their time surfing through streams for those which violate terms.

Watch some hot jailbait strip on cam, AND get paid for it? Genius!

Re:Live streams and content control (2)

dmomo (256005) | about 3 years ago | (#35761422)

Grand scheme!! If they do that, I'll write a bot that will auto-create accounts to stream porn. I'll be the first to report each and every one!

Re:Live streams and content control (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#35761454)

No they will have to do it as partners in good standings as a previous post stated, Low cost police won't accomplish anything, it would 1. Be abused in the wrong way (feeds of opposing political/religious views would be censored). Secondly the stakes are far higher for youtube then the smaller streaming sites. 500 little guys spread out across multiple countries that may or may not have any respect for copyright law is one thing. Youtube/google on the other hand, that's a big red bulls eye for lawsuits. Heck at this point in time suing google is sort of becoming the national past time. Your company isn't on the map if you don't have a lawsuit against google.

Re:Live streams and content control (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 3 years ago | (#35761460)

It's a dicey but promising business model. I don't think a freelance police force is going to work. Hell, Google's email abuse workforce can't even stop 419 spammers after a week.

The standards would have to be pretty clear, and will have the same problems everyone does with defining them very specifically. Enforcement then means that they lose some of their legal distancing, and different culture, hate laws, pornography standards, licensing agreements, DMCA theories, and other potentially expensive argumentativeness will dog them.

But it would be fun. I'd like to see a live-broadcast of a few concerts here and there, even if they're taken with cellphones. "Citizen journalists" will have a field day. Lots of fun stuff for all.

Re:Live streams and content control (1)

anyGould (1295481) | about 3 years ago | (#35763652)

Google could create a little program where users could sign up as Freelance Police and report them for money.

Only if I get a badge, a gun, and a DeSoto. (I'll find my own homicidal little buddy.)

Re:Live streams and content control (1)

rwa2 (4391) | about 3 years ago | (#35762474)

I know youtube doesn't allow adult content but what's to stop random people from streaming porn or something with one those apps that emulates webcams and streams a video. Are they relying on their report button? How fast will that work I wonder.

They'll probably handle it the same way that chatroulette (AKA "how many clicks to dick?") does.

Brave new world!

Are they ready for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35761210)

I stopped uploading stuff to youtube after it would take 2+ hours to upload and process a 10 minute video.
I wonder if they're really ready for all the emo drama queens that plague the "Browse" list to have live streams.

Re:Are they ready for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35761372)

The rest of us want to know why you're still on 56k dialup.
Thanks in advance, -The Internet People

Re:Are they ready for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35761696)

I'm actually on a fast, incredibly stable cable connection, the bottleneck is on youtube's side.
If you've ever tried uploading a video in the evening, you would know this. What is wrong with you?
Thanks in advance, -People who have actually tried using youtube to share videos with friends and family.

Re:Are they ready for this? (1)

pmontra (738736) | about 3 years ago | (#35762178)

I'm uploading 3-4 videos per week and often it says 100% complete but doesn't stop processing. Nevertheless the video is ready and I can see it in my channel's page. That's the only problem I'm having with youtube. No problems with speed but maybe we're served by different encoding machines. Did you try sending a note to them? (I don't know if it's possibile).

Re:Are they ready for this? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 3 years ago | (#35762806)

The rest of us want to know why you're still on 56k dialup.
Thanks in advance, -The Internet People

False alarm, video files are big.

Re:Are they ready for this? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#35762910)

The rest of us want to know why you're still on 56k dialup.

Because moving to an area where cable or DSL is offered can be cost prohibitive.

Re:Are they ready for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35763502)

inb4 Commodore64_Love shows up to extol the greatness of his 14.4Kbps internet connection and the evils of government.

Finally IPTV in the US? (2)

guruevi (827432) | about 3 years ago | (#35761274)

YouTube is large enough to have the big content producers jump aboard this streaming platform. I like that you can stream YouTube over a simple MPEG4 stream so maybe finally we'll have a real IPTV provider in the US that can replace my overpriced cable TV.

Re:Finally IPTV in the US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35765918)

Or you could just stop watching TV and save yourself vast amounts of time and money.

how about ipv6 multicast? (3, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 3 years ago | (#35761328)

Seriously.. I can't imagine what happens to bandwith when multiple people at the same ISP or office all stream the same live video at the same time.. (I think IPV6 multicast could be one of the truly bright stars pushing IPv6 adoption..)

Re:how about ipv6 multicast? (2)

gclef (96311) | about 3 years ago | (#35761938)

Content multicasting (as opposed to the v6 network information multicasting) is possible in IPv4, and it works identically to how content multicasting would work in v6. If content multicasting isn't used in v4, what makes you think people will use it in v6?

Re:how about ipv6 multicast? (3, Interesting)

riflemann (190895) | about 3 years ago | (#35763842)

The multicast address space in IPv4 is woefully small just a few /8's (each provider generally only gets an allocation of a /24 or /23). Multicast on v4 is just not feasible at internet scales.

IPv6 is much more promising however, given the vast improvement in address space. The only problem with multicast in general, is that content providers dont like the lack of control (anyone can join a multicast stream WITHOUT the provider knowing about it). Providers want total control over every client (somewhat of a common theme with modern media delivery mechanisms).
Perhaps the solution, is some kind of crypto on the streams that clients must negotiate the key for via unicast before getting the stream. But then its scarily close to drm.

Either way, I'm quite excited about the possibility of v6 multicast taking off once v6 is the norm (probably not long after duke nukem forever is released).

Re:how about ipv6 multicast? (1)

discord5 (798235) | about 3 years ago | (#35764662)

Perhaps the solution, is some kind of crypto on the streams that clients must negotiate the key for via unicast before getting the stream. But then its scarily close to drm.

The best part of this encryption scheme is that the encryption key is the same for everyone since well... the encrypted data is sent over multicast and is the same for everyone. So the moment a pirate sets sail on the high seas and copy pastes the stream info and encryption key to his buddies there will be tons of people watching the stream for free. If the key changes every X minutes you could setup a program that simply distributes the keys (perhaps using something like UDP multicast, since we have all that address space anyway).

You have a very twisted sense of humor, and I salute you for trying to sell snake-oil to an industry bent on selling you the exact same thing.

Re:how about ipv6 multicast? (1)

Comen (321331) | about 3 years ago | (#35765838)

Not true, even with IPv4 you can use all multicast ip space over for every single source ip on the internet, that was a change with IGMP v3, source specific multicast. I think the main problem has been that you have to get all backbone providers to route multicast everywhere, even to the home, and that just has never been done that I know of, and might not even with IPv6. Today cable companies use multicast to get video eveywhere on the own network, and it really would be a big waste of bandwidth for live real time events to use unicast all over the network.

Re:how about ipv6 multicast? (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | about 3 years ago | (#35764748)

Seriously.. I can't imagine what happens to bandwith when multiple people at the same ISP or office all stream the same live video at the same time.. (I think IPV6 multicast could be one of the truly bright stars pushing IPv6 adoption..)

Seriously? You can't imagine people using webcams on chat networks or even teleconferencing, using programs such as skype?

YouTube Live, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35761370)

Cue the Microsoft trademark lawsuit in 5, 4, 3, 2...

All these Live providers have one thing in common. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35761492)

LiveStream, UBroadcast, TalkShoe, and now YouTube Live: what good are they in a surveilance society of a country dominated by policy enforcement of the nearest existentialy extroverted Federal municipal military occupation?

These services all have one thing in common, and I know because I've used them with The Patriot 'bowel' Movement: all are chat discussions on course study material were indefinitely archived and never honestly cleared as we demanded. I get calls to this day from government officers harassing me about things said in the talks among participants. Much of the concern was non-registered accounts bringing questionable discussion among registered users like there was somoone intentionally starting offtopic matter to spurn this onto us! Always under investigation it seems, and no questions answered if it might derail the return-investment they hoped their Free(tm) and Good Faith(R) efforts hoped to withdraw in non-disclosure.

All these free websites are looking to be nothing more than a raquette of babysitters. It's like all these free online tools are banking on getting their hans in the kitty on prosecuting for malicious or illegal content activities! Will people be billed one far-off day for their IP address and user-agent being used as a Silent Auction token for all the "free" downloads they've made through RapidShare and MegaUpload? Find out next, ...in The Free Market(tm) of Libertea(sm) and Just-us(sm)!

Available on Applie mobile products? (1)

Walking The Walk (1003312) | about 3 years ago | (#35761656)

I'm wondering if these live streams will be available on Apple products (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad)? Currently they're very restricted; Apple pushed out it's own YouTube app, and Apple has rejected a lot of video streaming apps. You can watch some HTML 5 video, or mp4s, but that's about it. I'd love to for this streaming to "just work", but I can't imagine Apple would allow itself to get cut out of a potential revenue stream.

Re:Available on Applie mobile products? (1)

Salamande (461392) | about 3 years ago | (#35761742)

There's a justin.tv app that works just fine. Which other ones have they rejected?

Re:Available on Applie mobile products? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35761940)

if you're concerned, maybe you should stop using Apple products?

or shut up and put steve jobs' cock back in your mouth.

Re:Available on Applie mobile products? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#35762928)

Then how do I get my customers to follow my lead in not using Apple products? What viable alternative to iPod touch is on the shelves of U.S. electronics stores?

Re:Available on Applie mobile products? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35763620)

Go a store and look at the shelves. Brave New World!

No Android pod touch in Best Buy (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#35764020)

Go a store and look at the shelves. Brave New World!

I've been to Best Buy. I saw a bunch of alternatives to iPod nano (lesser-known MP3 players) and a bunch of alternatives to iPhone (Android and BlackBerry smartphones), and even a few tablets competing with iPad. But Best Buy stores don't appear to carry anything like the iPod touch, that is, no PMP/PDA in that size range that can play music and video and download and run applications. Pocket PC is discontinued, and Android-powered PDAs like Archos 43 and Samsung Galaxy Player just don't end up on shelves near where I live.

Re:Available on Applie mobile products? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | about 3 years ago | (#35764826)

Apple rejected a lot of video streaming apps?
My iPhone has:
Netflix
UStream
TV.com
Qik
tosh.0
Discovery channel
Hulu plus
[adult swim]
Facebook video
Al-Jazeera English

The App Store also has:
Slingbox
MLB live

Is there a video streaming app that Apple has rejected?

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35761768)

I can't wait to show everyone my penis.

Interesting that it's Flash (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#35761834)

It would seem to me - if they really wanted to push VP8 into the mainstream - they could've figured out a way to do this using that protocol rather than falling back to Flash.

I do understand, politically, why they didn't go with h.264. But choosing Flash at this point just seems backwards.

Re:Interesting that it's Flash (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35762160)

VP8 is not a protocol. Flash doesn't (yet) support WebM. HTML5 fails at streaming. Devices lack WebM. WebM streaming is experimental. Content providers refuse to stream over HTML5. I know nothing about this topic.

Re:Interesting that it's Flash (1)

mldi (1598123) | about 3 years ago | (#35763650)

Well, Flash isn't a protocol, it's a runtime. A video player in flash is an application. It can deliver different video encoded in a set number of codecs, which is what h.264 and webM is. Flash does not yet support webM. There is no viable alternative to Flash right now for streaming live video, especially with the same market penetration.

Re:Interesting that it's Flash (1)

Moochman (54872) | about 3 years ago | (#35767036)

There is no viable alternative to Flash right now for streaming live video, especially with the same market penetration.

Yes there is, it's called RTSP/RTP and it's well-supported by VLC and QuickTime (and by extension their browser plug-ins). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rtsp [wikipedia.org]

Re:Interesting that it's Flash (1)

mldi (1598123) | about 3 years ago | (#35781968)

Flash isn't the protocol. I believe that was well pointed out. You need an application to actually use that protocol. Nobody's putting VLC in their web pages. There's over 98% market penetration for Flash. Name one browser plugin that is multi-platform that has that same kind of market penetration and then we'll talk.

Dont forget you are helping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35762022)

You did know Flash has P2P capability and you are opted in by default

http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager09.html [macromedia.com]

set it to "disable P2P uplink for all sites" before they help themselves to your bandwidth

and mind the dataminer on the page [adobe.com], who knows what that 15kb obfuscated library does.

Re:Dont forget you are helping (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | about 3 years ago | (#35763958)

Wow thanks for that.

It included a large list of sites that apparently I have been uploading content to without my knowledge, I pay per GB so this is very ridiculous.

Internet usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35762040)

I don't get this anymore. Google/Youtube, Pandora, Last.FM, etc all have these streaming services now that means there is more and more content to be streamed, but in the same time ISPs limit their customers Internet usage. Will this end up being balanced out or will this one day bang heads so hard that Google and these services finally will take on ISPs to get the usage Caps removed?

End users should female dog to their ISPs (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#35762952)

Will this end up being balanced out or will this one day bang heads so hard that Google and these services finally will take on ISPs to get the usage Caps removed?

Perhaps Google is counting on end users to run up against their caps and threaten to switch to the other ISP.

DVR functionality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35762136)

Hopefully they will include some sort of archiving functionality, if these are live broadcasts, there is no guarantee that they will be available later, yet important information may be given or incidents may occur that may need to be referenced. Without something to reference, then it would only allow tenuous connections at best to the original broadcast.

Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35764406)

Youtube is rolling out streaming. Google just bought them since they couldn't get their own "Video" service to be popular. You suck boys, and can't wait until next year. Big changes comin'.

Market Expansion / Industry Threat (1)

Prysorra (1040518) | about 3 years ago | (#35765138)

I don't know why it hasn't been mentioned, but this will allow Google to threaten the broadcast news industry.

Why watch news on TV at *all* if you're busy watching livecast after livecast on YouTube?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...