New pricing plans: LiveEdu is switching to focus mainly on paying viewers and premium projects

featured-image-liveedu-new-pricing

There is an increase in our streaming cost due to higher usage of LiveEdu by users watching live streams and videos. We recently launched video uploading and about to launch our mobile apps as well as release new categories for topics on data science, game development, artificial intelligence, augmented reality, virtual reality, design and cryptocurrencies. Below  is a list of categories which will be released on each new topic:

Augmented RealityData ScienceArtificial IntellgienceVirtual RealityDesignGame Development
Augmented RealityData VisualizationMachine LearningMobile VRLogo designGameDev Tutorials
Big DataRoboticsDesktop and Console VRMobile App DesignGameMaker Tutorials
Data AnalyticsNatural Language ProcessingVR GamesWeb App DesignUnreal Engine
Text ProcessingSelf Driving CarArt and IllustrationLove2D
Data WarehouseComputer VisionUX designUnity
Data Mining
Wolfram
new-project-directory

Check out the new project directory! Cool, isn’t?

The recent development will lead to a higher streaming and business operating costs. Currently, we spend over 60% of our time and resources on viewers who do not pay for viewing content on LiveEdu. It is difficult for LiveEdu to monetize these viewers properly because LiveEdu is in the educational space and do not have the huge traffic gaming and entertainment websites have for monetization via advertising. In addition, we need to build out our streaming cluster infrastructure and expand our engineering team to cope with the workload of running streaming clusters, web and mobile apps. We cannot continue to offer LiveEdu for free to viewers because we have to cover the huge streaming cost, pay content creators and cover our business operational costs. To attract higher quality content creators and to improve the educational value of content (premium projects), we will be focusing on paying viewers. There is still going be free viewer account and free projects, but there will be a limitation as you can see in our new pricing plan table. Unlike Twitch and Youtube, LiveEdu is an educational platform and creating valuable educational content  (premium projects) requires that content creators spend significant amount of time preparing and structuring their project tutorials for streaming. Content creators will not continue to create educational content on a weekly base if there is no reward for their time and effort.

Focusing on paying viewers will reduce our workload, complexity of our product and increase content quality (premium projects) because content creators will be more inclined to generate valuable educational content if they get paid for their work. With this new change, we may experience a reduction of viewers on our site but, if we increase the content quality and user experience for paying users, we will be able to attract more paying users. In addition, we will weed out non-educational content (junk projects), focusing only on content where viewers can learn something from watching (quality instead of quantity). We will also screen projects before they start streaming. With the move to focus on paying viewers, we are going to expand our payment methods so that people can have more payment options regardless if they are from China, Russia, Brazil, Japan or India. We will also provide discounts on first-time payment for students if they submit their college ID to prove they are students.

When the pending release is implemented, there will 8 topics on LiveEdu and each topic will have its own sub-categories: programming,  data science, game development, design,  artificial intelligence, augmented reality, virtual reality and cryptocurrencies. As you can see in the new pricing plan below there will be  4 pricing tiers: Free, Single, Triple and All.

LiveEdu Pricing Plans

FreeSingleTripleAll
$0.00$9.99$14.99$19.99
1 topic1 topic3 topicsAll Topics
Limited to 3 hrs of free livestream watching per monthUnlimited access to premium projectsUnlimited access to premium projectsUnlimited access to premium projects
Up to 10 non-premium projects per monthUnlimited access to project playlistsUnlimited access to project playlistsUnlimited access to project playlists
Limited playlist accessDownload project filesDownload project filesDownload project files
Download project videosDownload project videosDownload project videos
Access for mobile appsAccess for mobile appsAccess for mobile appsAccess for mobile apps
Advertising interruptions
Send project requests*Send project requests*Send project requests*
Watch in high or low resolutionWatch in high or low resolutionWatch in high or low resolution
STREAM FOR FREENo AdvertisingNo AdvertisingNo Advertising
24hr Customer support24hr Customer support24hr Customer support
Unlimited project creationUnlimited project creationUnlimited project creation
up to XGB video storage per month for non-educational contentup to XGB video storage per month for non-educational contentup to XGB video storage per month for non-educational content
Set videos privateSet videos privateSet videos private
Opt out archivingOpt out archivingOpt out archiving
Team ChannelTeam ChannelTeam Channel
24hr customer support24hr customer support24hr customer support

With a free viewer account, you can access 1 topic, watch 3 hours of live stream per month for non-premium projects and access up to 10 non-premium projects. With a free streamer account, you can stream premium and non-premium tutorial/projects as a content creator and get paid monthly, but your projects will not be approved for streaming if they are not educational.  If you want to stream non-educational projects you will need to buy a Pro plan to stream.

For viewers, the main difference between the Single, Triple and All plans is the number of topics you can access. If you have a Single Plan you can choose one topic out of seven. If you have a Triple plan, you can choose three of seven topics and the All plan grants you access to all topics.

For streamers, the main difference will be the maximum allowed video storage per month for non-educational projects.

LiveEdu Pro plans are pretty cheap and cost less than $0.50/day. It is obvious that some users will be mad, but we cannot run LiveEdu for free any longer especially when we need to pay content creators. Therefore, we want to focus only on viewers that value their career and skills development and are willing to invest less than $0.50/day for their development.

FAQ

Q. Why are you going to charge now? Are you guys greedy? Why not make everything free?

No, we are not greedy. Running the company costs money. We have not made any profit any month since the launch of the company. If we were greedy, we would have charged users from day 1. Imagine if you were not paid at your job at month’s end for your work. That will not work out long term for you. Right?
We cannot finance the cost of running the service (streaming servers, engineers, support, etc.) and invest in infrastructure (new streaming servers, improving streaming quality, hire more people, etc.) if it is free. LiveEdu has been free up till now, and it is time to monetize to be able to run the service long-term. In addition, content creators get paid some money to incentivize them to create more educational tutorial projects (premium projects)

We still offer a free tier to viewers, but after that, they need to go pro.

Q. Why don’t you monetize via advertising?

LiveEdu is an education product and not a media product like Twitch/Youtube. Educational products do not command the huge traffic volume required for monetization via advertising. That is why we are monetizing via subscriptions.

Q. Why are you moving your focus away from random streaming where content creators do whatever they want when they have time?

As elaborated, for the non-premium content, it is not possible to drive viewers on them (advertising) or sell content (subscriptions). We experimented with different ideas for a year on it, but none worked. It is time for us to focus our limited resources mainly on premium projects.

Q. Do you know you will have fewer streams and users if you charge?

Yes, but quantity of streams and users is not our core metric. We are focused on paying users (customers) and quality educational tutorial projects . Our goal is to get 50 scheduled premium projects per day instead of 600 unscheduled non-premium projects.

Q. Can I still stream non-premium projects?

Yes. Non-premium content creators can still stream but it is not something LiveEdu will focus on or market.

Q. Would LiveEdu continue marketing my non-premium projects for me?

No. Non-premium project content creators are to market their content to get viewers following this guide.
If they don’t, they will have fewer viewers and view time on their streams and videos.

Q. Will non-premium content creators also get paid some money?

Yes, as explained on this page. But to be honest, if you care about money then create premium projects.

  • Quote: “creating valuable educational content requires that content creators spend significant amount of time preparing and structuring their project tutorials for streaming”. This is where it’s a problem. I’m paid $50/hour at Packtpub for reviewing books. As a teacher, I’m paid $70/hour to teach NodeJS, big data, Python and Django (mainly in engineer schools and at some big companies it’s much more). You think this way: “teachers who need to earn money should spend many hours to prepare and structure their project tutorials for streaming”… this is not possible!

    I see liveedu as a platform to share live streaming. *Live*. And the word “live” implies “no preparation”. And fun. And chat, and exchange with viewers.

    If you want professional courses, *prepared* courses, then I’d better make a 100% prepared video and sell it to Packtpub, I’ll earn much more money.

    I think the way liveedu is changing is not good: you’re trying to be “between” what sells Packtpub (= professionnals video around $70 each, and those are really pro videos) and “very fun” like livecoding was used to be. You should stop asking people who are streaming to spend many hours of preparation, because if you do so, you loose all the fun that livecoding had. Try to find another way of monetization. For example: the chat. Maybe allow four sentences / 30 minutes if they dont pay. Or whatever.

    • LiveEdu.tv

      It seems you have some misunderstanding. Live does not mean ‘no preparation’. Live just means the content is streamed live, but it does not mean random and silent streaming of unstructured uneducational content. LiveEdu is focused on real projects and not beginner level tutorials. It is all about real projects people can learn from and download resources. Viewers don’t come on LiveEdu just to watch silent screens where it is hard to follow what is going on. Best content creators on any live or video site do really prepare their content somehow even if it is not obvious. when it comes to educational content preparation is even more important!
      As you mentioned you earn money with your work, we also have to pay content creators and business operations costs. The use case you described is not one that is profitable for LiveEdu to focus on as explained in detail in the article.

      • I understand that you need to earn money, like everybody else.

        When you said: “LiveEdu is focused on real projects and not beginner level tutorials. It is all about real projects people can learn from and download resources.”

        Ok. I’ve made some videos and sometimes I see how many coders are streaming. Best I found one year ago: 20 streamers online. Best I found this month: 7 streamers online. Maybe the streams are good quality. Maybe with those 13 who stopped streaming, 13 were making silent screens. Or maybe 3 were making silent screens and 10 ran away when they see what livecoding is now. It’s your choice to try to earn money this way.

        • LiveEdu.tv

          We are more keen on quality than quantity as announced here: http://blog.liveedu.tv/moving-quantity-quality-content-liveedu/
          We are focused now mainly on PREMIUM PROJECTS (https://www.liveedu.tv/projects/premium/) and NOT non-premium projects. All our company resources are now focused on premium projects. Our goal is to get 50 scheduled premium projects per day instead of 600 unscheduled non-premium projects. With the focus on premium projects, yes there is going to be a drop in non-premium projects. Non-premium content creators can still stream but it is not something LiveEdu will focus on or market. Non-premium project content creators are to market their content to get viewers following this guide: http://blog.liveedu.tv/liveedu-content-marketing-manual-for-streamers/

          As elaborated, for the the non-premium content, it is not possible to drive viewers on them (advertising) or sell content (subscriptions). We experimented with different ideas for a year on it, but none worked. It is time for us to focus our limited resources mainly on premium projects.

  • Aaron Liske

    LiveEdu has lost their way. With ever GUI tweak or pricing change, they have pushed more and more people away. How many people are going to go from a platform that was free and relatively versatile to having to pay up to 20$ per month? The content is still put out by people that really do what they want with no guarantees that they will screw over the view by either stopping in the middle of the project, or by just screwing around in general. I strongly support the streamers that move to Twitch or other platforms. I was a huge advocate for the site in its infancy because it gave freedom to both the viewers and the streamers to do what they wanted to, then the freedoms have slowly been taken away. I understand that there are bills to pay, but alienating current and past content creators and viewers is not the way to do it.

    • LiveEdu.tv

      Just because LiveEdu was free in the beginning does not mean it will be free forever. There is no free lunch forverer anywhere 😉 Like explained in the article LiveEdu is focused on monetizable education tutorial projects that viewers will pay for to watch and practice with. This can be premium or non-premium projects. Pricing starts from $9.99/month which is less than $0.50/day. We are focusing our limited resources on paying viewers as we are a business.

      As explained in article, LiveEdu is not targeting silent non-educational projects as they are neither monetizable nor worth watching. Such content can be streamed on other sites that are more suitable for it.

  • Bye Liveedu.tv [*]

    • As explained in the article we cannot offer the service for free forever as there is monthly costs to cover. If you expect LiveEdu to be free forever without a sustainable business model that will not be possible. The use case that viewers like watching and also willing to pay for are structured educational projects. Silent projects and streams that show up time-wise randomly on LiveEdu is not something viewers watch and is also not monetizable.

    • LiveEdu.tv

      As explained in the article we cannot offer the service for free forever as there is monthly costs to cover. If you expect LiveEdu to be free forever without a sustainable business model that will not be possible. The use case that viewers like watching and also willing to pay for are structured educational projects. Silent projects and streams that show up time-wise randomly on LiveEdu is not something viewers watch and is also not monetizable.

      Content creators that create structured educational projects will paid out monthly: https://www.liveedu.tv/make-money/

      • Yea, I understand it. Anyway in my opinion you’re too fast trying to earn on everything – on streamers, viewer..

        For example I never want to earn on my streams.. On our facebook group called “LiveEdu.tv Streamers” people are saying this same..

        • LiveEdu.tv

          As we explained in other comments, we cannot build a business just on the use case of the hobby streamers who stream sporadically just for fun. We have monthly business operations cost to cover else we cannot run the platform long term. If you want some viewers to access content for free more than the free tier will offer, you can buy Pro subscriptions for them. We offer Pro discounts on bulk purchases.

  • Mich

    Wow, I was preparing to come back on the streaming scene with Live Coding but all this paying plans are going to put a lot of people away. Like lot of people I stream for the love of sharing my knowledge. All I want is to share it freely. Some people can afford to pay while other don’t and you are penalizing those who can’t.

    Since the junk content do not get any audience, the good one gets it all. Viewers are smart and will only go to the good content, ignoring naturally the bad. Making people pay to watch will also penalize the streamer that wants to reach the largest audience possible regardless the income. As you grow, you automatically get more donations. But it’s going to be extremely hard to the streamer to grow his audience if you cut that audience from the start.

    • LiveEdu.tv

      If we could make LiveEdu free forever we would. But this would not work as explained in article. Content creators that create structured educational projects will paid out monthly: https://www.liveedu.tv/make-money/

  • Maxwell Twylor

    For $9.99 or $14.99 per month I don’t mind if the premium projects I can watch are good.

  • Chris dasCode

    This is hurting a lot of people. We are going to lose a lot of interested people. And because of this you are going to lose a lot of pro members. I have pro membership but see no reason to continue it. As I will not have an audience anylonger.

  • Stevenson Leo

    This is great news. Time for structured projects I can learn from without the junk content.

  • adamsouceck

    LiveEdu is switching to focus mainly on paying viewers …. because they need to pay rent in the bay area…. Do not blame streamers because streamers never asked money for streaming. Streamers were always happy and enjoying a good community streaming for free. RIP LIVE*.tv Long life to Twitch!

    • LiveEdu.tv

      The kind of streamers who stream educational projects that most viewers watch do ask for money as they spend a lot of time preparing their content and streaming like 20hrs per week. It is their valuabble time. Hobby content creators who stream occassionally their side project once a week or month is not what we are targeting. Third, we are running a business and it is obvious that we are not going to offer LiveEdu for free forever. Every business needs to run on a sustainable business model

  • Karrmarr

    The only thing that made livecoding special has always been that it was a streaming platform solely for coders. This way, a great community has built up, where coders were watching each other, discussing about coding related topics etc. Some people were even getting friends here in real life.

    So personally I am very sad that it is going in this direction now and I have doubts, that this new way will be successful. Maybe I am wrong, but that’s how I think about it.

    • Sigfried Seldeslachts
    • LiveEdu.tv

      The community for coders is still there and not getting removed. Maybe you misunderstood the article.We are only getting rid of junk content that no viewer wants to watch. Our company name has been LiveEdu since launch. LiveCoding was just a sub-topic name. Removing junk content will improve the quality of content for viewers. The coding community will always be there.

      • Karrmarr

        I disagree, the community is gone. Many of the streamers I knew from before are not streaming anymore, and they didn’t just do silent streams…

        • LiveEdu.tv

          As explained in the article “quality over quantity” LiveEdu is not focused on quantity:
          http://blog.liveedu.tv/moving-quantity-quality-content-liveedu/
          We can easily get a lot of content on LiveEdu if the only criteria is quantity. Quality of the content matters that is why we are decreasing the quantity to focus on quality (structured educational projects). Viewers are willing to pay for educational content versus random uneducational streaming. Yes, we will lose some content creators, but it does not matter.

          • Karrmarr

            Ok viewing it from that point of view you have reached all your goals. The quantity is really low.

  • Sigfried Seldeslachts

    R.I.P. have fun dying. LiveCoding was good, LiveEdu is shit. You just destroyed your whole community. You would have gotten away with a few ads, but this is ridiculous, if you were smart the community should be the top priority, they will even donate if it’s good. But now, not streaming anymore on LiveEdu.

    • LiveEdu.tv

      We are not targeting silent content streamers. Thus, it is ok for those to stream on Twitch/Youtube. It is not the type of content or use case we are focused on. Such content gets no viewers anyway. Ads are only viable for entertainment sites with huge traffic volume and not educational products. Donations are not a serious source of monthly revenue in our case.

      • Sigfried Seldeslachts

        I loved the idea of LiveCoding, but ever since the name has changed to LiveEdu things went down hill. There were many streams, and yes you said it before quality over quantity but not having anything on your website doesn’t always attract people right? And just why are you putting a limit on the streaming hours of non-premium people. It’s just bullshit, and you’re asking money but I can’t even watch a stream properly without it loading every 3 seconds, and don’t doubt my internet. You are just telling people that they need to use something else (in other words). Or are you guys becoming something as Treehouse or Lynda. And donations aren’t indeed a serious source of revenue, but if you had made your company non-profit you would have sponsors, which as the looks of it you don’t have. Most of the online education should be free to watch (and I said free to watch, so ads are allowed). Which isn’t possible I know, people should get their revenue somewhere but LiveCoding was that people could know from each other by watching a stream. Also: more community = more visitors = more ad revenue. Please think this through so the old community doesn’t have to make a new LiveCoding ;).

        • LiveEdu.tv

          If a project is a created there is no limit on number of stream hours for content creators. Where did you read that there is a stream hour limitation? Is this maybe an English language problem that you do not understand the article at all?

          Can you file a bug report for the specific stream or video? There are many reasons that could have caused this. Such issues are the reason we are getting rid of junk content so we can focus on fixing issues on valuable content.

          • Sigfried Seldeslachts

            I’m picking this up as an insult. LiveEdu isn’t very nice to it’s users. What I mean is that you can only watch 3 hours of stream when you are not paying for LiveEdu. Which is clearly in the posted above.

  • Jacques van Wyk

    So you are throwing away real livestream coders and opening up for money hungry people that dont care about viewers.Look what happened to udemy i know its not same platform but udemy used to have great courses now because people see they can make money it changed.I hope this does not happen here i truly hope this platform becomes great.

    • No, exactly the opposite. We are just improving the quality of the content on LiveEdu to make it educational and engaging. Silent project streamers in general have no viewers on LiveEdu. Content that gets viewers are projects that are educational and structured where the content creator engages with the viewers by talking or chatting. All we doing is moving to focus on engaging and educational content. See more here in the linked article: http://blog.liveedu.tv/moving-quantity-quality-content-liveedu/
      As explained in the article, viewers don’t like watching a silent screen where they can’t follow what is going on (junk content).

    • LiveEdu.tv

      No, exactly the opposite. We are just improving the quality of the content on LiveEdu to make it educational and engaging. Silent project streamers (junk content) in general have no viewers on LiveEdu. Content that gets viewers are projects that are educational and structured where the content creator engages with the viewers by talking or chatting. All we doing is moving to focus on engaging and educational content. See more here in the linked article: http://blog.liveedu.tv/moving-quantity-quality-content-liveedu/
      As explained in the article, viewers don’t like watching a silent screen where they can’t follow what is going on (junk content).

  • shieldgenerator7

    I think LiveEdu is missing the point. Their USP (vs. Lynda) is not “practical projects instead of just general knowledge”, it’s interactivity. Users can ask questions and get an immediate answer on a livestream, vs with a video you have to wait for someone to read your comment and respond (if there even is a comment feature). Unless LiveEdu is going away from streaming, I think they should focus on the interactivity aspect more.

    • LiveEdu.tv

      Hi Shieldgenerator. Just to clarify, livestreams and chat are NOT going away. You are right, that this is what makes LiveEdu interesting and we are keeping it. All that we doing is increasing the content quality by focusing on tutorial projects where viewers learn something and can ask questions in chat because the content is engaging and NOT silent. You are absolutely right on the interactivity aspects. The move to focus on education tutorial projects will increase interactivity. Also a new more user friendly chat release is on the way.

  • Kevin Rodger

    I actually like this new change as a viewer and streamer as I agree it does not make sense to allow crappy content like some streamers streaming silently for hours. When I see such silent streams and videos I just move on as it is not worth my time. When I stream I explain things in between and talk with the audience.

  • Cristian Buleandra

    Related, I just wrote this like 24 hours beofre this blog post was released: http://www.tips4design.com/2017/06/why-livecoding-now-liveedu-failed.html

    • LiveEdu.tv

      Thanks Cristian. The reply I posted for Joseph Walton-Rivers answer your points well.

  • Trevor Anderson

    Guess it’s time to move to Twitch. Unfortunately I’m not really interested in liveedu, livecoding was more for me. Lynda.com is the same price, which is why I’m guessing the new pricing structure is the way it is and who the new competition is. Not that I would pay for Lynda.com either, just not for me, but liveedu has a ways to go before their content is competitive with others.

    • Cristian Buleandra

      Hey Trevor, this is exactly how I feel too. I loved livecoding, I started streaming because of it, but the current state of LiveEdu is so unclear and confusing. See the blog post I linked above, I guess you feel the same…

      • Philippe Back

        I do not understand what they are trying to do and frankly, there is too much to read in this age where the average person attention span is less than the one of a goldfish (9 seconds for the goldfish). They have lost their ways I guess.

      • Landon Cope

        I miss livecoding too, I streamed because of it. The creators perhaps should have kept livecoding and created liveedu as a side project with different objectives.

        • LiveEdu.tv

          Thanks Landon. We are a small startup with limited resources and cannot run two businesses at same time. The reply posted to Eugene Esca also relates to your feedback.

      • Eugene Esca

        Joining what said above too. LiveEdu now is just another business tool. Livecoding had the ‘atmosphere’ and certain code-mood; for LiveEdu the atmosphere changed to ‘we are doing it for the money’. No motivation left to stream on this platform with such aims and focuses.

        • LiveEdu.tv

          Thanks for your comment. As we explained some months ago in the article “Quality over Quantity”
          (http://blog.liveedu.tv/moving-quantity-quality-content-liveedu/) the use case of content creators just streaming silent projects is not something we can build a business on. As the article explains the issues are:
          – streamers show up at random hours to stream when they want. They don’t schedule their streams at same schedule each week. Viewers are not sitting around 24/7 on LiveEdu waiting for a project X to show up at a random time. The best projects on LiveEdu are those that are set at regular schedule each week

          Viewers are not interested in watching work mode projects but teaching tutorial projects where they learn something. Work mode projects where the person is just doing his project and does not explain much is not worth a viewer’s time and does not organically draw any viewers. Nobody wants to wtach a silent screen for hours without knowing what is going on.
          unlike Twitch the content streamed on LiveEdu is not a standard entertainment product on which we can draw thouands of viewers on one channel. The content on LiveEdu is educational content which is fragmented by topic, framework, difficulty level and language. Example: A viewer interested in watching PHP Laravel intermediate level projects is not at all interested in Python Django projects.
          The best content creators want to get paid for their time to create more structured educational content
          Even though silent streams are fun for some streamers, this is not a use case we can build a sustainable buisiness on. Running a streaming platform is an expensive and complex operation and we cannot focus on a use case that neither draws a lot of viewers organically nor is monetizable.
          Note: Scheduled and structured tutorial projects which are monetizable solve all the above issues in one strike. Viewers are willing to pay for structured tutorial projects which as this article explains will be our main focus going forward.

    • Philippe Back

      Same. Life coding was cool, live edu is meh. I have an Oreilly safari thing and it is packed to the gills with books and videos of high quality. Why bother with another me too? So long, and thanks for all the fish. And I got Twitch for free with Amazon Prime. 2x Meh

      • LiveEdu.tv

        Thanks Philippe. LiveEdu is focused on a different use case than Twitch/Youtube. Thus, the comparison is not fit. LiveEdu is focused on project-based learning (real practical projects) and targets people from intermediate level. Our content does not need to be on the quality level of Lynda/Oreilly as our users are interested in real projects and not polished videos that do not represent reality.

    • LiveEdu.tv

      Thanks Trevor. Unlike Lynda/Pluralsight LiveEdu is focused on project-based learning (real practical projects) and targets people from intermediate level. Yes, you are correct we have to work to clean up the content quality and that is exactly the reason for this move and focusing on paying viewers as the amount of work involved for this is huge. But our content does not need to be on the quality level of Lynda as our users are interested in real projects and not polished videos that do not represent reality.

      • Trevor Anderson

        What this move essentially does is rid the platform of the last remaining remnants of livecoding. Livecoding wasn’t about educating, it was about sharing ideas and the projects people are working on. That’s very different from an educational platform. With livecoding people did learn, but the streamers weren’t educators. For that they would need some sort of curriculum/plan to follow, and from what I see from your paid content that is exactly what you’re encouraging. Lynda also has project based learning. Liveedu is a very different platform than livecoding, which was my point above, and the point of this article. What I got out of this site was contact with other streamers, programmers and entertainment, I liked the social aspect of checking in on what others were working on. This isn’t worth my cold hard cash as I can get it elsewhere for free, and I just don’t see the paid content as valuable enough to pay for either. I’m fine with the ads, and deleting videos that are silent junk content, rules are fine with me to weed out those and even ban users who consistently break the rules. But let’s not pretend that when you talk about content quality you’re not referring to content you can sell. It’s easy to see that most livecoding style content has a limited shelf-span, typically it’s only worth watching live, and you need videos that can be found easily and revisited by old and new users over and over again. So ya, you want polished edited videos, this is why you’re adding the ability to upload to a site with live in the title This is where the education aspect comes in, I get it, embrace it instead of trying to fool us into thinking nothing is changing, I liked the old livecoding better and I don’t think anything is going to change my mind, but I’ll keep an eye out. Best of luck to you, maybe I’ll be back in the future.

        • LiveEdu.tv

          Thanks Trevor. You are absolutely right. As the above article explains, the idea is to focus on content we can sell to viewers (monetizable tutorials) as we have to make revenue.

          • Mich

            Trevor is so right, the main idea was for us streamers to just get the stream started, work on whatever we wanted, no plan to follow, no polished or edited video. Things were not even tutorial, they were just real life coding.

            Now you want to sell those monetizable tutorials. A tutorial is straight to the point, bugless, perfectly coded, well edited, no silent thinking moments…. It’s contradictory with your saying about videos not being polished as on Lynda.

            Real projects, live code is boring, slow pace, lot of debugging, lot of thinking and that was the real spirit.

          • Mich

            Right now I am soooo saaaaaad that it’s taking this turn, I guess I’ll have to go stream elsewhere 🙁

          • @michgeek:disqus If you read all the discussion everywhere, they dont listen to coders, or streamers, they are only justifying *why* this choice. I’m just hoping they will listen and bring back livecoding. Like a lot of streamers said: if a stream has a lot of silences, people will go to other stream. They dont understand that it’s not necessary to mute/remove the stream. It’s a mistake to want “better quality”.

          • Mich

            @olivierpons:disqus Exactly! If the stream is silent no one will watch, therefore no bandwidth is used for those… therefore silent stream should be a negligible cost. Also instead of thinking that streamers are a cost, they should see them as a long term investment because they are the fuel of this platform. What is the purpose of it if people stream but visitors cannot watch freely?

          • LiveEdu.tv

            No, you misunderstand things. Silent random uneducational streaming is of no value for viewers.
            Some streamers might like this but it is not something of value for viewers. If no viewers watch the content being streamed it is of no value on LiveEdu. Tutorial project is a type of content viewers search for and are also willing to pay for.

            We have premium tutorial projects and normal blog projects. You can still stream normal blog projects if it is not just a silent stream but you engage with the audience.You do not have to stream premium projects and actually the premium projects are not totally polished and bugless (they reflect actual development process but they are educational). ​

          • Mich

            I’ll be happy to stream “premium” engaging content as normal project because I don’t feel like making viewers pay to watch but they still be limited to 3 hours… per month

          • LiveEdu.tv

            If you want some viewers to access content for free more than the free tier will offer, you can buy Pro subscriptions for them. We offer Pro discounts on bulk purchases.

          • You are still trying to justify your decision, you are not listening. All coders around are saying: 3 hours for viewers = taking away the viewers. There are not more and more viewers, but are *less* and *less* viewers. I would call “3 hours for free” = shooting yourself in the foot.

            Today people are using youtube on a daily basis much more than 3 hours, *for free*. You can’t expect those people to pay to watch videos that are “live coding”.

            I’ve given you the idea: when you can speak with a coder, it’s nice and it brings a lot of information. Just limit non-paying viewers (and non-streamers) to 10 messages/day.

            And please re-think your interface, this is the less-user friendly interface I’ve ever had to use in my whole life, and almost all my students (150 this year in the 4 engineer schools) didn’t understand how to use it.

          • LiveEdu.tv

            LiveEdu is not focused on viewers (users) but paying viewers (customers). As explained in numerous blog articles on this blog and in the comments here LiveEdu is focusing on a different use case than the sites you mentioned.

            could you please send us an email (support at liveedu.tv) with some pointers on what sucks so we can understand things better? There is a new UX and site design coming out soon. The first pages will be released soon as announced in newsletter: https://projects.invisionapp.com/share/SWBIGYL5U#/screens/231453112/comments

          • I’ll send you a mail if I have the time to summarize all the usability problems we saw.

          • LiveEdu.tv

            Awesome, thanks.

  • Joseph Walton-Rivers

    So if your taking away the viewers (maximum of 3 hours per month they can watch across all content creators) why don’t the streamers just switch to another platform like twitch creative?

    I loved the platform but this is getting silly – I could cope with the chat spam from the official bot, the premium streams, the premium content nagging (even though I’m a pro member) and the threats of blacklisting the content creators from the directory that you don’t feel contribute to the site, but now you’re actively stopping people from watching content. What’s the point of a streaming site if no one can watch the streams?!

    • Trevor Anderson

      My guess is the switch from livecoding to liveedu, they want to compete in the education space and not in the live streaming space. So Twitch, YouTube is no longer their competition, but the likes of Lynda.com. In that sense they don’t want non-paying viewers, they want to charge for content. Which is also why they’ve just added the upload ability, to get more polished and edited content.

      • LiveEdu.tv

        Thanks Trevor. We’ve always been an education and learning company. That is the main motivation people visit the site. They don’t come just for entertainment but to learn something from projects. The article explains actually the new pricing plans. There is no need for speculations.

    • LiveEdu.tv

      Thanks, Joe. LiveEdu (née LiveCoding) has always been about education and learning since launch. The article gives an answer to each question you asked. We are not stopping viewers from watching content. Paying viewers can still watch content. The article explains why viewers are not interested in watching silent and junk content that is not educational. It is also explained in the article why content creators want to be paid for their time to create valuable educational content. Content creators that create and stream educational content will have no problem with this change. As the article summarizes we cannot run LiveEdu for free for forever.

      • Lee #i61

        Guys, I feel like you have got this completely wrong. Yes, you can’t run it free forever but isn’t there a way to monetise without passing the cost on to viewers? (like twitch.tv)

        I used to stream quite regularly on this site, I was even mentioned in the newsletter once, and was the ‘top weekly php streamer’ for a while.

        I feel that the site has gone downhill with the attempts to monetise, are there no VC opportunities? You had a good platform, but passing the cost on to viewers is not the way to approach this.

        I think at the beginning you probably inspired a lot of people to take up programming, but now it’s becoming a ‘mainly’ paid for service, only people that want to be programmers / designers etc will even bother to come to the site.

        If this is your approach, I’d honestly stop worrying about the live streaming and focus on being a site like udemy, but this does mean as a platform, you have to start all over again.

        I honestly don’t want this site to fail, I just checked the site and you have TEN people watching THREE streams. It’s really not good enough anymore. You are clearly doing something wrong yet are still full steam ahead with these changes.

        • LiveEdu.tv

          Lee, thanks for the feedback. As announced in the previous blog articles if your channel does not have any viewers it is because you are not marketing your streams and videos to get viewers! In the past LiveEdu marketing team used to market all content for content creators, but we changed to market only premium projects that viewers will pay for. Content creators who are working on non-premium projects are to market their own projects to attract viewers following this guide: http://blog.liveedu.tv/liveedu-content-marketing-manual-for-streamers/

          If you follow the guide above you will be able to drive viewers on your channel.

          The article explains why the focus on educational projects. A VC will not fund silent content.

Read previous post:
image1
How Canadian-Russian Content Creator Backmeupplz Became A Successful Entrepreneur And Teacher

Meet Backmeupplz from Canada, Vancouver. He is one of the best streamers on LiveEdu.tv. He successfully completed the Premium Project...

Close