Was using Microsoft Stream this week. It's part of
Post# of 33002
(Total Views: 744)
Posted On: 08/06/2019 6:39:17 PM
Was using Microsoft Stream this week. It's part of Microsoft Enterprise Office365 subscription but others can buy it separately. If VERB can be integrated into Microsoft's Stream, I could see the value added as there is nothing I can see that offers the ability to link to other sites, documents, etc from within the video. Microsoft wants to distinguish Stream from other vendors and with it being integrated into Active Directory and the rest of O365, it's a compelling case for companies to adopt. Within Stream you can do live events or setup channels where you add videos to view later.
"For example, there’s a product, it’s a video streaming product that Microsoft came out with not long ago called Stream, and that’s a little different. There, our team is working with their engineering people to talk about integrating it into the product that will be sold by Microsoft. So, that’s a different deal, different revenue model. That’s what I was referring to before when I said there’s some differences."
BTW: 135M monthly active users on Office 365 commercial
While I was in Outlook I went to the add-in area and typed in "interactive". Only 7 applications came up and one was video related. You can have the video somewhat interactive but every interaction stops the video which is annoying to say the least. Pricing was $400/yr for individuals and for businesses, it started at $6,000. There was one user review. I can see why Microsoft would be interested in VERB
"For example, for Outlook, it will be—at least initially, it’s planned to be an add-on. So, if you’re an Outlook user, existing Outlook user, you would pay an additional monthly fee and you would have the tag video, interactive video capability right there in your—right on your dashboard, on your tool bar, if you will, within Outlook."
"Yes. So, I guess I answered a portion of this before in response to a different question, but, yes, we’re going to—initially, I think we’re starting with Outlook, that will be the first one that comes out. It’ll come out as an add-on. The users will pay us directly for that."
BTW: 400M Outlook.com active users
"Yes, I like this question, because I think that some people who, for whatever reason, like to say negative things about the Company, tend to persuade people that anybody could just go online, fill out a form and have a product integrated into Salesforce or Microsoft. That’s really kind of preposterous. For us, yes, it’s very different. The partnerships that we have with some of those large, large players, they were really from very high-level introductions initiated either by them directly reaching out to us or us reaching out to them through one of our Board members or one of our Advisory Board members. All of these were really a mutual desire for the relationship and what each company expects to get from the relationship, and was very collaborative in the process. It wasn’t just, you know, filling out a form online, really so far from that. I hope that answers your question."
This is my favorite as some will get schooled on how this all works. You can ask anyone in the tech field that has done partnerships. If it was just filling out of form, every company would sign up with everyone. You are not going to spend months and hundreds of thousands of dollars of development just for the heck of it. Yeah, that's right, it can't be done in 1000 lines of code or an hour. If it could, Microsoft would do it themselves obviously.
Part of the agreement is for each company to mutually sell each others products. It's right in the filing. These companies don't let you show up in their portal for the hell of it. If they did, tens of thousands of companies would be there.
BTW: Two people on the advisory board worked for Microsoft including one as the CIO. Does anyone think that they advised VERB to just fill out a form?
Funny thing about common sense
"For example, there’s a product, it’s a video streaming product that Microsoft came out with not long ago called Stream, and that’s a little different. There, our team is working with their engineering people to talk about integrating it into the product that will be sold by Microsoft. So, that’s a different deal, different revenue model. That’s what I was referring to before when I said there’s some differences."
BTW: 135M monthly active users on Office 365 commercial
While I was in Outlook I went to the add-in area and typed in "interactive". Only 7 applications came up and one was video related. You can have the video somewhat interactive but every interaction stops the video which is annoying to say the least. Pricing was $400/yr for individuals and for businesses, it started at $6,000. There was one user review. I can see why Microsoft would be interested in VERB
"For example, for Outlook, it will be—at least initially, it’s planned to be an add-on. So, if you’re an Outlook user, existing Outlook user, you would pay an additional monthly fee and you would have the tag video, interactive video capability right there in your—right on your dashboard, on your tool bar, if you will, within Outlook."
"Yes. So, I guess I answered a portion of this before in response to a different question, but, yes, we’re going to—initially, I think we’re starting with Outlook, that will be the first one that comes out. It’ll come out as an add-on. The users will pay us directly for that."
BTW: 400M Outlook.com active users
"Yes, I like this question, because I think that some people who, for whatever reason, like to say negative things about the Company, tend to persuade people that anybody could just go online, fill out a form and have a product integrated into Salesforce or Microsoft. That’s really kind of preposterous. For us, yes, it’s very different. The partnerships that we have with some of those large, large players, they were really from very high-level introductions initiated either by them directly reaching out to us or us reaching out to them through one of our Board members or one of our Advisory Board members. All of these were really a mutual desire for the relationship and what each company expects to get from the relationship, and was very collaborative in the process. It wasn’t just, you know, filling out a form online, really so far from that. I hope that answers your question."
This is my favorite as some will get schooled on how this all works. You can ask anyone in the tech field that has done partnerships. If it was just filling out of form, every company would sign up with everyone. You are not going to spend months and hundreds of thousands of dollars of development just for the heck of it. Yeah, that's right, it can't be done in 1000 lines of code or an hour. If it could, Microsoft would do it themselves obviously.
Part of the agreement is for each company to mutually sell each others products. It's right in the filing. These companies don't let you show up in their portal for the hell of it. If they did, tens of thousands of companies would be there.
BTW: Two people on the advisory board worked for Microsoft including one as the CIO. Does anyone think that they advised VERB to just fill out a form?
Funny thing about common sense
(22)
(0)