Slashdot Mirror
Google and YouTube Continue To Struggle With Details
An SFGate article looks at the still rocky road that Google and YouTube are traveling as they try to iron out after-merger details. Hanging in the air are things like the Viacom takedown request, competition from Joost, and deal-making with organizations like the NBA and BBC. They're also concerned about little things like, you know, making money. From the article: "Tensions [with IP holders] haven't reached lawsuit status -- yet. Such a fight could be long and costly, but with Google's backing, YouTube could afford it. And that may be why media companies have held back so far, [IP lawyer Lee] Bromberg and others said. Google and YouTube have something to gain from deal-making, too. For the company to make money from advertising -- and the potential is huge, with an estimated $70 billion to $80 billion spent in television advertising -- Google and YouTube need the premium videos. Because viewers are more likely to watch these clips than myriad user-generated ones, advertisers are willing to pay more for them. "
You're a moron.
Porn.
1) Spin off an "adult" section of YouTube.
2) ???
3) Profit
Competition from Joost? There is no such thing, nobody knew (or knows) what Joost it, while YouTube already hit the mainstream media.
The deal between Viacom and Joost is like when that beautiful cheerleader, after breaking up with the handsome quarterback, chases him and says "I'd rather to sleep with the first idiot that passes by me that going back to you". And picks up the first idiot that passes by her. And gives him a big sloppy kiss.
That "first idiot" is Joost. Everybody knows that Viacom end up ironing a deal with Google, and that they will be back in bed soon, so, no need to give him false hope.
Let's face it, the YT videos are usually of poor quality. So anything that would require good quality to be enjoyable will not really fly. Sound quality is ok, so it's no big surprise that a good deal of YT videos deal with some kind of music video (either the video itself, some concert bootleg, some moron lip syncing etc) or some speech, where it doesn't matter too much what the guy looks like as long as you can make out the key features or if applicable his visual material.
I doubt that many would want to watch a documentary, a movie or pretty much anything that takes more than 5 minutes. Bandwidth is one concern (we still pay per GB transfered here). But the bigger one is that I'd feel like wasting my time if I spent more than those 5 minutes watching something in shoddy quality.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
google/youtube just simply needs to get more tv networks and whatnot onboard. But the deal maker is to get ALL music videos online, not just current "hip" ones that the kids are watching today but as many as possible.
Replays of old tv shows would be great, even current tv shows could make a deal that youtube could have their shows a week or two later, kind of the same setup sendmail has, actual tv viewers get the latest, but computer tv viewers have to wait. So tv networks don't lose their audience if they decide to go online because the stuff online wouldn't be the latest episodes.
Because viewers are more likely to watch these clips than myriad user-generated ones, advertisers are willing to pay more for them.
Maybe so, but that's a bad thing so I hope the media-generated clips get pulled off to some site left to rot like all those bad videos in the local video rental store. There are more than 300,000,000 people in the US alone and we don't need Hollywood to entertain ourselves anymore --nor do we need to have them pull some porn-star reject into a studio to show us "America's Funiest Home Videos" while coaxing us to blow $1 a piece on text messages to "vote for our favorite". Oh, and by the way, I'm 40 (GenX), not some next-generation 18-25 (Millenian) Borged'out dude from the future. I have it on good authority that there are not enough people in GenX and GenY combined to fill the power vaccum left behind by the Baby Boomer generation, so we're going to have to share our time with the new Millenians (which is just fine for the GenXers, but got help those poor GenY folks who are more or less older-peers of the Millenians and just don't get this social networking thing yet).
Since joost got so hyped up early .. when it actually comes out it'll be a downer. I don't think it's going to be a success because they're delaying launching the service.
.. they can always keep it separated and labelled on a separate channel.
Of course when it fails everyone will say online TV is dead. And then Apple will do it right.
Also, I dont see why Joost is so vehemently against user generated content
Will they allow linking to channels/tv show scenes from the web like youtube style?
"Because viewers are more likely to watch these clips than myriad user-generated ones, advertisers are willing to pay more for them."
Isn't the myriad the point? YOUtube, and not THEIRtube? It appears to me this is an attempt to finally define the internet's replacement for television, since past attempts to hybridize (WebTV, for example) have failed to become accepted as widely as the entertainment industry would like.
If They were paying attention, they would realize that you need to advertise evenly. It doesn't matter if someone's watching the second episode of Who's the Boss or three fat kids on a webcam lip-syncing to The Safety Dance, someone is watching a video, give them an ad. Selling ads specifically on a given video is TV-era thinking. This is the mighty internet tube system, it doesn't work the same way.
...when bean counters get their hands on something, and make it all about the money.
okinawa japan
"because viewers are more likely to watch these clips than myriad user-generated ones, advertisers are willing to pay more for them"
Thats a a load of bullshit. If YouTube does that, it isn't YouTube anymore. remember,"broadcast yourself". Whoever this analyst is, either he is paid by those studios or doesn't understand the point of YouTube. Its FUD against YouTube, which is a excellent thing in itself(YouTube not the FUD),whether you like it or not.
I don't know from where all those statistcs people pull that, YouTube is mainly driven by content from those big fucking studios.I for one, disagree with that. I visit lots of technical blogs everyday and I see lots of YouTube links sticking out there and guess what most of those videos are either user generated or some other arcane stuff.
The article's notion of 'afford' is odd: just because Google (and therefore YouTube) has money doesn't mean they can afford to blow it on lawsuits. Youtube needs to increase in profitability by 1000 fold in order for Google to make any profit on it at all. Google cannot afford YouTube as it is today, let alone with huge lawsuits to deal with.
Companies like Google/YouTube and Apple are in the unique position of having the ear of both media companies and, potentially, lawmakers. Google has sufficient credibility, cash (ie. lobbying), and clout (image / exposure / visibility) to diminish the control of IP hogs like media companies. It will take some epic battles to make inroads in freeing the consumer to be able to copy his/her own DVDs and downloaded music any number of times they wish. It's shaping up to be an interesting year...
Intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom
I'm going to bring to the attention this paragraph from the article, "No such deal exists with YouTube. But it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that, if Google's experiment goes well, YouTube might adopt a similar model. For now, [i]YouTube and the NBA have agreed to share advertising that runs alongside [/i]the NBA clips and [i]videos of fans showing off their best basketball moves.[/i]" And doesn't the highlighted section alarm you?
Google and YouTube need the premium videos.
The world in general needs to break the addictive, destructive relationship with the "premium content" providers. Google would do the public a far greater service if it simply put ads in the user-made vids, (assuming it absolutely has to, of course) and avoided forming any type of relationship with big media entirely.
The film companies and record labels need to be sent a message that they cannot indefinitely push the viewing public around, bully them, sue them, and otherwise treat them like cattle, without there being deeply negative consequences for them. If someone becomes willing to do this, big media might start treating people a bit better.
And I'm sure a lot of other people are going to find out the same thing. With my Vonage service, any peer-to-peer application results in poor sound quality thanks to the ridiculous upload speeds Comcast provides. And I'm sure it's just as bad using any other VoIP provider. I've had to use a cron job just to make sure BitTorrent doesn't gum up my phone service.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Surely dailymotion.com is where most people choose to place their "Big Media" clips these days? For now it is rendered invisible to corporate legislators due to:
1. having an unfortunate name that conjurs scatalogical images.
2. being partly in some kind of 'code' language known as "French"
3. You probably couldn't sue them for that much
It's only really low bandwidth, bad quality. places like the newer upstart veoh allow you to download a higher resolution version of the video you watched.
That is where they need to go. they compress the youtube content so hard even incredibly good looking videos end up looking crappy on youtube. at least others are offering higher quality options.
and yes, most people dont care if their video content get's downloaded as can be seen with the amount of content on veoh.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
No shit - you're saying that professionals in the TV and movie industries generally crank out better stuff that amateurs? And you're wondering why the companies that bankrolled the professionals so they could sell advertising inserted into the professionals' final product are getting annoyed that a competing company is copying the content and putting its own advertising on it? If that last bit's a mystery to you, I'm not sure I can help.
Generally, I think of YouTube as the next generation of "America's Funniest Home Videos". Entertaining? A little. $X billion entertaining? Dunno. Going to replace my viewing of DVDs and a handful of TV shows on cable? No.
This is where I get worried about where Google is headed. At its core, it's not really a tech company; it's a media and advertising company. Its "consumer product" is a search engine and now YouTube, but it doesn't really have any "premium content" or service that serves a unique need or performs it in a unique manner.
They kill Youtube through red tape, and then Google Video rises like the Phoenix?
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Why would it alarm anyone?
Care to elaborate?
Women really respect a man who conflates his self-worth with the type of computer he uses.
And by women I mean fat women.
with? Could it be the ol' "V of Doom"?t tp%3A%2F%2Fcarolrutz.com%2F
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dselGGpMsyM&eurl=h