This story is exactly why TechCrunch is such a joke. You can't make giant, sweeping statements like: "The Day Live Web Video Streaming Failed Us" and then, in the second sentence of your story, deliver a bunch of incredibly impressive stats about how successful the various streams were.
I like how the last paragraph reveals the true point of this post though. It's just a veiled advertisement for another lame P2P video service.
How does anyone take these people seriously? It's kind of fun to watch them flop around making mountains out of mole hills but anyone who considers these jokers to be a legitimate news source should re-think how they get their information.
But it did fail. For those 21 million people, the video stopped or it kicked them out or there were audio problems.
I am not sure why the article plugged some obscure video streaming software. CNN.com already does peer to peer video transferring via a flash plugin that it forces you to download.
They probably didn't make it up. I watched on Hulu and it had real problems for me, too. And CNN was impossible. It's possible most Internet users have never even heard of Hulu, and they were the best case.
I tend to agree. TechCrunch writes what it needs to for the pageview numbers they need to hit.
The best part is that this story is syndicated onto the Washington Post's tech page. That version of it is now one of the top stories on Google News.
Out of all the stories being published today, this particular one has been deemed one of the most important on the internet, due to Arrington being such a smooth operator.
I like how the last paragraph reveals the true point of this post though. It's just a veiled advertisement for another lame P2P video service.
How does anyone take these people seriously? It's kind of fun to watch them flop around making mountains out of mole hills but anyone who considers these jokers to be a legitimate news source should re-think how they get their information.