Chapter Three LLC

Solve Obvious Problems

Zack Rosen

Tremendously successful web startups tend to solve very obvious problems. They innovate in how they do things, not in what they do.

Take for example:

Sold for $1.65B, now the ninth most trafficked website on the internet. Their innovation? Making it stupidly simple to put your videos online and share them.

Making a successful business is incredibly hard, you’re nearly always best off keeping things as simple as possible. Most people I talk to seem to think the success has more to do with the right idea with the right people at the right time, i.e. luck… it is that, but much more. Just as important (if not more) as those obvious factors is something much more subtle. In a startup a million and one things can go wrong. The wrong hire, the wrong market, wrong brand, wrong back end technology… etc etc. If you get just one thing wrong chances are you’re toast.

But people win… some routinely, the ones that seem to play the game with ease. The savvy ones have read the rules better than anyone and apply strategy where as others rely on just their guts and friends. The general two-bit understanding of the business horizon for the technology sector reads as follow: backed by the drum beat of Moores law, technology will steadily advance at an exponential rate, and in our lifetimes we will see innovation flooding all technology gaps until all floats atop a seamlessly perfect techno-utiopian first class world.

It is in the quickly flooding narrows of sillicon valley that the nerd-cowboys catch their waves and jostle for control of the floods, navigating their carbon fiber racing yachts and suborbital starships from opportunity to opportunity. But it is not brawn, speed, or fitness that counts the most in this race, it is your timing.

As my Bulgarian fencing coach Iana Dakova could demonstrate with ease on her students, the best fencers were those who were not competing through their blades and finessed footwork, it was the ones who had such impeccable physical game that they could afford to think and strategize, in the middle of the bout, in between the tenth of a second second actions and reactions. These were the ones who could always kick your ass. The ones who could turn your own sense opportunity, your own sense of timing, and spin it’s momentum back around and impale you with it so quickly and cleanly that you knew you were through even before the blade hit, and the buzzer sounded, and the judge or anyone else watching had time to even think about what just happened.

Since YouTube.com got bought for 1.65B everyone i’ve heard talk about it mentions something like “But it’s just a stupidly simple website that people used to upload video, how could it be worth so much!” But think back a bit. In 2005 it was nuts that nobody had yet figured out how to make video work the web. We had 40% broadband penetration, and our juicy 25 and under target market spending more time on the web than on any other medium… the kids who used to watch more tv than anyone and watching more and more each year were suddenly ramping back the tube watching in favor of online games, websites, and im’ing. But nobody figured out how to get them video. I guess in the mentality of the time it could be rationalized that “The web is so much richer a medium than tv. Kids don’t care anymore about video”. But that’s a load of crap. Kids were only online because the content available in a medium no richer than FM radio and newspapers, was better than the extremely well produced video content pumped through the now ignored tv’s in their living room.

It wasn’t that they didn’t want video, it was that they found internet non-video more interesting than TV. But as soon as YouTube figured out how to create internet TV they had a new daily destination, and one little dot-com miracle came true.

Ok, but couldn’t that be explained as simply right place right time?

No, I don’t think so. People have been putting video on the web since the web took off.

So, what did YouTube get right?

I think the biggest reason YouTube was successful was something so incredibly simple that when I explain it you’ll probably think I’m full of crap (which often times I am). YouTube won because they encoded their content as flash files. Hear me out… The norm for video content at the time was to offer it up in a stream-able format such as Real Video or WMV which were theoreticaly easier to copy protect. The only problem was that they hardly ever worked. Do you remember buffer hell? Of course video on the web never took off, it never worked. But YouTube did theirs in flash, with a big play button and a pre-loader, so videos would load instantaneously and would never stop halfway through. And so people watched them, uploaded their own, told their friends, and within half a year YouTube had a daily audience of more than 100M.

YouTube won because they solved the simplest problem, literally how to put video files on the internet in a way that other people could actually play them. And that was stupidly ingenious. And that is why they won.

Hey at least youtube is good.

The thing that angers me is myspace. Myspace looks like it was hacked together by a couple of twelve year olds. The coldfusion is sloppy, the html is sloppy, the site is slow, the interface is horrible. And look at how much myspace got? Just sickens the mind.

Posted by anon (not verified) | Oct. 16th, 2007 @ 7:36am | Link to this Comment

And on a darker, monetary side of things...

Good post, Zach. Thank you.

I know that money is not bad. I rather enjoy it. After the first time I saw Syriana (and I’m at about 6-7 now - there just keep seem to being more people I insist on showing it to), the answer has stuck with me about how you make tons of money. As in, mega tons of money (to use the proper phraseology).

This is it: create an appetite that needs regular feeding and comes in cheap, ubiquitous servings. Gasoline (because of car ownership), cigarettes, coffee - but then also coca-cola (re: getting special permission from the army to go up to front lines in WW2, giving out free coke and on return to the states - a created appetite). Cocaine and prescription drugs also relate here.

I kept wondering. Sugar. Fundraising in ‘04, I remember hearing about the money behind the sugar industry (and what a dark, dark corner that is). Hell, sugar is cheap. But it’s everywhere and people want to pay for it.

Even, to a degree, bottled water. Shit, no one needs that stuff, but someone successfully created an appetite for it.

What I want to get at, though, is not just a deeper understanding of economics, the world, and the mega-powerful. It also occurs to me that the way to change the world is to put principles such as these to positive ends. In other words, how to create a mega-successful industry that effects good.

Posted by Gray B. (not verified) | Dec. 9th, 2006 @ 10:55pm | Link to this Comment

flash was the reason

You are exactly right that the reason YouTube worked is because it made video simple. But how did it do it? It did it in a very low key way - you upload almost any video file format to it and it would convert it to flash format so it could be streamed in a flash player. And since everyone has flash installed, it reduces browser and OS compatibilities by orders of magnitude. Plus, it gives a consistent viewer experience. And THAT was a development that only came about several months earlier, with the release of Flash 8 in 2005.

http://news.com.com/Flash+8+poised+to+take+on+Web+video/2100-1032_3-5808...

So really the innovation came from Flash 8 stepping up and making a Flash Video Converter that could take any video file and spit out a FLV file. Perfect. The real winners here are Macromedia…it’s just beginning for them.

Posted by Farsheed (not verified) | Dec. 8th, 2006 @ 1:00am | Link to this Comment

The obvious question

The obvious question, Zack, is what obvious problem are we gonna solve in 2007? ;)

Posted by Josh Koenig | Nov. 30th, 2006 @ 12:16pm | Link to this Comment

Perhaps bridging video on

Perhaps bridging video on the computer with video where it belongs… in front of the couch. DivX has a site now that literally mirrors the functionality of YouTube… using Divx video instead. You can stream them on the webpage immediately, or download it immediately, burn it, or do what I do, copy it to an SD card or a thumbdrive and put it into my new Divx Ultra Certified DVD Player with a USB port. Pretty soon, most DVD players will not only have USB ports and Card readers, but network connectivity and hard drives as well. The ability to move video amongst any device IMHO will be the next big solution for video, at least.

The new divx codec includes a one size fits all video encoder as well, where you drag your videos onto a pretty button, and choose whether you want it encoded for mobile, portable, home theatre, or HD.

I see potential with this site because they have already signed up to provide music videos and movie trailers from major labels and studios. Every bjork video ever made is available, for instance. The best part is that these videos appear side by side with user created content.

stage6.divx.com

* I am in no way affiliated with divx or stage6… i just think it rocks!

Posted by thepugh (not verified) | Feb. 27th, 2007 @ 1:59pm | Link to this Comment

some, but also

You are making sense: the leaner hungrier entity won out. Yay competitive marketplaces!

But for what its worth, google’s embedded player was always clunky, and they made you download a special app to upload into their system. That was another thing YouTube got right first: letting people upload stuff and drop video into other areas of the web and having it “just work.”

Also, I think they benefited from a relatively risk-tolerant strategy when it came to copyright. Without much to lose, they could be rather lessez-faire about what their users did, which definitely helped spur early growth. Now with Google to sue and people like Mark Cuban (who seem I respect less with every action he takes) making noises about buying-out companies who are pursuing litigation, these salad days are over, but there should also be plenty of legal content and the amateur stuff is the real future driver in any case.

Posted by Josh Koenig | Nov. 30th, 2006 @ 12:05pm | Link to this Comment

word

word! so true.

but how come youtube beat google video or salon-videodog, then? both were/are functionally near-identical flash-based video sites with major financial/brand backing that arose concurrently with youtube but were ultimately not as succesful.

me, i suspect that the financial/brand backing is what killed them— the surfeit of VC funding and old-media dependence left them accountable to an artificial list of priorities, rather than a simple financial bottom line. youtube had to innovate and fight to survive, rather than floating its losses on other companies’ gains. And so, in the end, it was the most innovative (mostly in social networking stuff), and so the most succesful…

i’m not yet confident i’m making sense, though. thoughts?

Posted by Tones (not verified) | Nov. 29th, 2006 @ 11:28pm | Link to this Comment

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <br> <br/> <br /> <p> <img> <blockquote> <i> <b> <u>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • SmartyPants will translate ASCII punctuation characters into “smart” typographic punctuation HTML entities.
  • You may post code using <code>...</code> (generic) or <?php ... ?> (highlighted PHP) tags.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options