28 thoughts on “BitTorrent, seeded, now waits for VC funds”

  1. A lot of podcasters are looking at bittorrents as a vehicle to cut their bandwith costs. We are developing bit torrent plugins for our podcasting software to enable podcasters to put their media out there via torrents.

    So in a way bit torrent and podcasting are linked to eachother. Which one deserves more funding? only time will tell..

  2. Pingback: SiliconBeat
  3. Monetization?

    Cisco makes money off its products. Bit Torrent hasn’t shown in any way how it can make a sustainable profit off its technology. The free nature of the open source software is a fundamental aspect of its success.

    I do not deny Bram his recent fame (he was a high school classmate) but so far, there’s been little indication that Bit Torrent will create a profitable business from its technology success. The protocol standard fundamentally belongs to the net at large at this point given how many implementations are around; attempting to monetize it through search or directory systems will not have any fundamental advantage over the existing players in those spaces.

  4. As I recall bittorrent is open source software, so I do not think it (Bittorrent the Company) has any inherent advantages over other bittorrent clients like Azureus which are much more robust platforms. And search engines are a dime a dozen these days.

  5. as mentioned above, bittorrent is open source software and there are many clients (and servers) that support it. So what advantage does Bittorrent the company have? Is their name really worth anything? If someone like download.com switched to using Bittorrent (the protocol, not the company), what possible advantage would Bittorrent (the company) have over them?

  6. I’m pretty sure around 1999 or 2000 somebody was wondering how Google would ever make money. Well, they found AdSense and now they’re a juggernaut. The point is, anybody who becomes an important distribution channel for content that millions of people rely on on a daily or regular basis, can monetize that attention in tons of ways.

    From a practical standpoint, they can do advertising, subscriptions, or both. What if they said ‘use us to publish your content. Low fees. How much do people like victoria’s secret pay right now to multi-cast video on the internet? OK there’s your business model.

  7. Om,

    Mssrs Cohen & Navin were also looking for $100mm (not a typo) PRE-money valuation for their A round. Do you think anyone bought in at that price? sleuth away.

  8. re: chad
    i don’t see how the bittorrent company can use advertising or subscribtion for it’s services. i agree that selling its content distribution system (and mangement of?) to companies that need to send out huge amounts of data to lare amouns of people in short time is the way to go. it’s bandwidth management at it’s finest. say goodbye to server’s cracking under th eload of some hot new trailer/game/program 🙂
    however, bittorrent is open source, there’s no reason the company can’t use bittorrent to distribute nythng now, and not pay a penny. maybe advertisements would be included in the official client, well there are many advertising-free alternatives already., and people are on a advertising, popup, spyware weary stance at the moment anyway.
    all this rambling, makes me think its the managememt system that could be worth the money. free for personal use, companies pay… a way to provide creation and mangement of torrents for your website, perhaps a web based client, secure tranmission, etc.

  9. oh and torrents can’t be used for streaming, so live video with minimal bandwidth isn’t going to happen.

  10. Remember, also, that many people are trying to monetize this area – RedSwoosh comes to mind, and so does Kontiki. While I think both of them have had success (Kontiki powers the video download of Gamespot, for instance, and RedSwoosh powers some portion of iFilm downloads), I don’t think either of them have become giants. Then you’ve got companies like Akamai going for the same prize. The trick, of course, is that Bit Torrent needs to provide a higher quality network at a lower cost – something I think they’ll have a hard time doing. Even if they do, I don’t see them as a giant in any case.

    And as for the podcasting stuff – Om, I couldn’t agree more….

  11. The way to monetization is what Prodigem is already doing. Re: psych, it is all in the management system and making it easy to publish. See prodigem.com for our take on it.

  12. Om,
    Podcasting startups like Wine.com – give me a f*in break. PodTech.net vision is not even close to a wine.com model.. Bittorrent is great but it’s a different animal than some of the media apps being developed.

    A better comparision might be podcasting (apps/operating environments) is Microsoft and Bittorrent (plumbing / transit) is Cisco…

    Key about podcasting is to differentiate between a standalone podcasting shows verses emeging podcasting (media) platforms…

    PodShow like my PodTech.NETwork is about building a platform for media developers.

  13. Pingback: SiliconBeat

Leave a Reply to Ashwin Navin Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.