What Lies Ahead for Periscope - Monetisation (Part One).






Who is Going to Qualify?






This leads us to better metrics.

Better Metrics




Duh! Don't Wait on Periscope




In (a sorta) Conclusion








Hurdles of Live-Streaming with a DJI Drone on Periscope

Having owned a DJI Mavic since December 2016, it think it's valuable to share my perspective on what it takes to learn how to pilot a flying robot with cutting blades, across one of the most densely populated parts of the world.

I'm in a unique position, in so much as being one of the very few live-stream broadcasters in Hong Kong showing the sights and sounds.

I live-stream on the Periscope platform. Most live-streams are a private broadcast for patreons, and once a month, I also share a public scope with non-paying viewers. For those interested in knowing more, click the link. There is also a schedule at the top of the page.

I also make and upload some drone videos on to my YouTube channel.

I wish I could solely make videos for the YouTube platform as it's much easier than live-streaming on Periscope. All I need to do is select a location free of signal and legal interference. This isn't anything to do with the in-built option of streaming on YouTube with the DJI Go software, it's down to the fact that live-streaming with a drone on Periscope has so much more to set up behind the scenes in order to pilot it.

No native solution for Periscopers. Need to use RTMP to set up a drone as a seperate device.


Things to Consider Before Flying Using Periscope.

  1. Location function is turned off. Viewers can't follow you along on the map that's normally provided in periscopes and the viewers end up constantly asking pilots where they are flying*.
  2. You need two (iOS) devices. I have to create a hotspot from one iPhone to another iPhone to be able to stream on Periscope (actually I don't need to hotspot, I just need 2 unlimited data connections you know?!). I have a spare iPad, but as others have reported to me, hotspotting to iPads doesn't work. Luckily I have a second iPhone paid for by my patreons**.
  3. The DJI Go app doesn't natively support Periscope. If it did, I'd need only one phone. So now I'm looking at two screens (if piloting alone) while a dangerous flying robot with spinning blades is hovering over Hong Kong. The current solution I feel is basically a quick fix.
  4. Periscope Producer (PP) requires more bandwidth by default. Normal scopes broadcast at 380p. PP needs at least 960x540, so more cell bandwidth is required. Luckily I have unlimited LTE in Hong Kong. You're out of luck if you're on a plan with a GB limit.

These four items I hope, are simplified by Periscope at some point, however their hard-on for 360 VR Periscopes know no bounds and the development team I'm repeatedly told, is small. I am going to assume technical changes will be coming later rather than sooner. Phone calls to DJI are certainly required. Kayvon the co-founder of Periscope has never even flown a Mavic on his own platform. I wish he would do, and then realise how ridiculous the current solution is.

So why do I live-stream on Periscope then?. It's just live-streaming is so attractive, and I have overcome these hurdles in spite of Periscope's attitude towards drone broadcasts. I continue to stream because of the engagement factor, it's a massive incentive to narrate and engage with an audience. This is why it's mostly a paid affair. Should this extra work be given away for free?

Other things to consider.

  1. I need near perfect signal to stream. Another Periscoper "Penguinsix" with his YouTube channel, created a short video to display the actual signal strength from an iPhone. I've learnt for Periscope broadcasts with a drone, that I need a minimum of -90 to ensure no stuttering is present during a scope. Anything above that might not even work!
  2. Legal issues. I'm not allowed within 50 meters of a structure or a building, flying at night is a no no as well.
  3. Hong Kong is extremely dense. Signals from wifi, radio signals, metal, satellite TV, other GPS devices, interference from buildings, it goes on and on. Even with Ocusync and a signal booster, signal strength is going to be severely limited in and around Hong Kong. So far I can get around 400-500 metres in a given direction near the city when I'm lucky. Over open fields and water, I can get 2km.
  4. Don't forget mother nature! A pilot needs good weather and low wind speed. 

"I am one with the force, the force is with me".

I'm still learning how to stream with enough signal ( the '-90' required simply to enable periscope transmissions). It's my biggest obstacle that I can't pre-plan for. I'm learning only through trial and error; taking notes of signal strength in and around the city as I travel. It's slowly becoming a sixth sense. It's a different intuitive mind map aside from just knowing where to just fly a drone legally. 

Hong Kong itself is almost an island city state, I'm lucky with open areas to fly over busy shipping lanes, near city structures, islands, massive religious statues (two Buddha statues exist), abandoned villages, peninsulas, bays, mountain peaks and open fields. I want to fly all over it using Periscope if I can. It's still the best live-streaming platform for showing the world, Hong Kong.

My hope is that people find these brief technical descriptions useful for flying near a city while using Periscope. I also hope there is a better understanding between viewers, and those who create 'drone scopes' because of the amount of technical knowledge required just to provide another form of entertainment that can be dismissed away by tapping an 'X'.


* Periscopes made with drones need 'Periscope Producer', but 360 periscopes, regular periscopes get the option of including location. Periscope have responded to requests that 'most' scopes are inside a studio and don't need the location option. The big deal behind this however is discoverability is lowered dramatically. So spend thousands on technology only to be penalised in the process. The most mobile type of a Periscope live-stream ironically doesn't feature the ability to know to viewers where they are.

** The Phantom 4 required one smartphone to broadcast. Location was also available, so on some technical levels, live-streaming with a drone on Periscope has retarded.

I've Seen Tertiary Characters At Star Trek Conventions Get More Attention.

Viewer: "Are you going to Summit Live"?

Me: "No, it's bullshit".

Events like these have always felt self-masturbatory. Especially at a conference venue. Conferences imply authority, but with live-streaming I'm not sure what anybody can claim to be the authority of exactly, yet. Nobody should be claiming anything from what I've seen put on display this week.

Summit Live for those that don't know, is the live-streaming event for those invested in live-streaming*, it's live-streamers, live-streaming about live-streaming. It shouldn't be too much harder to organise something than the word play at play, right? It's not a puppy convention with some individuals saying, "hey let's stream this to the world". It should be better presented than that.

It's my modest expectation to be able to watch a live streamed event by live streamers, and have it marketed adequately enough to an outside audience, creating that crucial, precious FOMO for when the next one comes around, in order to better build out the next event to an even better degree. 

I'm not feeling anything.

After two years I find the Summit Live events aren't getting better, it's scandalous for two reasons (ignoring all other live-streams ever streamed before to the world in human history).

  1. I'm still watching presentations made available to me from someone's phone sitting in the audience. I understand that's the beauty of live-streaming as it's reactionary to an event. Conferences however aren't dramatic in the slightest, and as these apps develop, so should the manner in which video is streamed.
  2. Why is no one is sitting at the front streaming to at least hide the fact that nobody is turning up to listen? Who is charge of the room? Where are the backseat marketers and influencers saying this is okay? I would want to see a blossoming from a yearly event, not a drying out husk.

What you have then, is one of the best live-streamers, Josh Robert Thompson, (subjective I know, but definitely someone who brings more televisual experience to the event than anybody else, [this is why a woke JRT satirically examined the state of live-streaming in his talk]) and the day before you actually had the Community Manager of Periscope, presenting to not even half-filled conference rooms about upcoming new features; that on the whole are interesting, but who fuck is watching?

Honestly, a write-up on Medium might have been better use of Lili's time. 

Periscope's @lilisalzberg addresses their community at #SummitLive -https://twitter.com/geoffgolberg/status/834925321543643137

The photo above doesn't inspire confidence for further Summit Lives. Especially when Periscope themselves don't even promote their own speaker via the official Periscope account with over 9 million follows. Clearly Periscope didn't regard it as important enough. I've seen tertiary characters at Star Trek conventions get more attention. Would Periscope want to attend again?

There has to be at least 101 marketeers at the event, right?

To the people staging this event, you're not creating any buzz that's reaching the casual viewer. I have a mixture of new and old people attending my scopes who are unaware of what Summit Live is. I'm doubting if you're able to reach enough casual viewers collectively through those attending scopers with their own individual fan base, that it creates a perception that there isn't much FOMO to be shared out.

Getting the word out generally for something like an event via live-streams seems to be a problem endemic to the platform though. Still.

I'm aware of the politics to some degree and qualitative aspects to who was talking and the price and so forth, but I want to just focus on my two issues; the dog-fooding with setting up a stream, and the discovery of live-streams as a casual viewer. Yes I'm aware I'm a prolific scoper, and I'm not really just a casual viewer, but pretend I am one. 

I made no effort to get involved with anybody at the event, and I didn't bother to look up the info on the website. I knew about the event solely through word of mouth inside the Periscope platform. I can't say I tried hard to avoid it either. Further still, I found myself at a loss as to why this event is worthy of my time, as a live-streamer though I can't help but get annoyed for the platform as a whole when the most readily accessible live-streams are from audience members who just happen to be there.

These are the same audience members who by and large are going to get in the way of the subject at hand.

Periscope even featured a scope from San Francisco's Legion of Honor art Museum this week. Within 10 seconds of viewing, I realised the scoper is just part of the tour and is asking periscope viewers if they can hear the tour guide while he actually faces the scoper's portion of the crowd. No wonder it has an 18 second average view time.***

Why is this worthy of being featured? Even if it got better, will viewers see it through and give it a chance? We give movies (we paid money for) we think are bad, a chance.

People can be critical of me for having expectations, (and were critical in the scope I made) but my viewers have that opportunity to dismiss me in that way because I'm voicing my opinion on something that is lacking in general terms. The vast majority of Periscope viewers will simply just end the scope and move on to another one. The qualitative aspects I'm referring to are going to be judged no matter what, some of it with opinion, some with not giving a scope enough attention.

What's my investment in watching a stream if the person holding the phone is talking over the main speaker and/or engaging with the comments? It's amateurish and in my case, its only because I really wanted to watch JRT that I put up with it. It represents a kind of streaming ironically JRT is referring to. It shouldn't represent Summit Live, it's for viewers who don't know any better and don't realise there is an official feed.

Live-streaming it yourself seems like an after thought.

What's that you say? You DID live stream it yourself beyond the capabilities of someone simply holding a camera and pointing it in the general direction and the streams can be found (replays no) on summitlive.live?! Then why wasn't this promoted?

I learnt about the website while making a scope being critical of the event (in the same way here, but with more grunts, lost sentences and umm and ahhs). Once it was pointed out that what I asked for was available, it becomes a marketing problem. It shouldn't feel like an after thought. I can't even go to the website and catch up on past streams. I can on Periscope or Busker. So what's the deal with that?

Building on top of that, why is this web based? Is web traffic that much larger than the phone and tablets we're already using with which to view live-streams? Isn't this a contradiction of sorts when its live-streaming from mobile phones that created this growing new media in the first place? Shouldn't an event about live-streaming show to the world how live-streaming is done? 

Never mind not going next time, I'm probably not watching.

* It's the event by default since there aren't any others.

** Fear Of Missing Out.

*** It could also just be a poor choice generally by the editors at Periscope.