Slashdot Mirror
NBC, News Corp Join to Create YouTube Clone
Brett writes "It's official: NBC Universal and News Corp have announced their plans to
create a video sharing site of their own. The
joint venture will features both TV and movie shows in full length, including episodes of '24,' 'My Name is Earl,' and movies like 'Borat.' The plan is to also syndicate content on
other portals like MSN, MySpace, and Yahoo! It's unclear how YouTube's previous deal with NBC relates to this, but it's clear that the major players are now shunning YouTube."
If they allow people to mashup their shows and whatnot, you can wave bye-bye to YouTube.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
What if you built it and no one came? This sounds like a huge money pit for the folks in Hollywood.
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
...don't cha think?
Have they squatted the name wedontgetit.tv yet?
While they're at it, maybe they should develop their own web search engine too. Oh, and a portal! And some dancing hamsters! Everyone loves the dancing hamsters!
I just don't think NBC is going to be able to displace YouTube for the homemade videos. They'll probably get people to come and watch their shows though.
what about a GodTube clone?
not laughed so much in hours
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
Oh yeah? Well I'll create my own YouTube! With blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the YouTube!
but what will it cost to view the content? i mean it seems to me that one of the largest draws to youtube is that it's free and good for a quick time waster/video fix. remove the free aspect, and youtube would have been just another failed web start up. anyway i highly doubt news corp and/or nbc would be open to simply giving away viewings to movies. NBC is already dabbling with free tv shows online (the only example that comes to mind is Heroes - you can catch that on nbc.com for free [they advertise it with each episode of heroes on the tube).
..do they mean web ads, or ads in the show (like traditional commercials)? In my mind, there is a big difference, especially considering that if they were commercials the service would probably try to keep people from skipping them.
Seriously, I'm amazed that these parties would even be caught in the same room together. I've been to industry meetings (different industry) where many of the major players get together. All such meetings are preceeded by a highly-paid attorney telling us exactly what we can and cannot talk about. Even if we just heard the same lecture 2 hours ago.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Is any video sharing site to be labelled a youtube clone?
Just like newbies to the intarweb would think that Yahoo is a "google clone"?
Is this a "Apple invented the computer, mp3 player, and are currently inventing the phone right now and we cant wait" type of a deal?
I just remember seeing video on the internet pre-youtube.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
How can this be described as cloning YouTube when we all know good and well that none of the content will be created by the proverbial "You"?
How is this bad? This is natural. I did not expect gootube to be the end all for online video. I doubt google expected a monopoly position either. We are only seeing natural competition within this type of service.
If the media conglomerates are going to create a source of truly free content, then more power to them. But I won't be holding my breath.
Homer: Oh, yeah! I'm betting on Jai Alai in the Cayman Islands, I invested in something called "News Corp"--
Lisa: Dad, that's FOX!
Homer: Undo! Undo!
You can buy shows and movies there.....so what is the big deal?
Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
I hope it is better than NBC's Video Rewind site which lets you view previous episodes of their shows. It is so glitchy that it is probably easier for an end-user to install BitTorrent, find a site, and download it. They use Flash video, so you get postage-stamp size video. They divide it into 6 sections and run short commercials in-between -- shorter than network TV commercials, which would be nice... except that half the time it gets stuck and doesn't move on to the next section. Then if you try to seek it displays another commercial. And it plays the video before it is buffered so you have to pause/play it manually and guesstimate when it is safe. Then of course, if you mis-click, or the playback glitches, you seek and get an ad and have to start over. It took me 2 hours to watch a 1 hour episodeof Lost.
.MP4 file? It's a standard, cross-platform format that every OS has a player for. Sheesh.
To top it off, it crashed when I exit the browser (Safari) which is sad since I can spent hours watching videos on YouTube without it crashing.
Why can't they just stream an
As someone who doesn't have or watch TV (except downloaded shows), I really hope this comes to fruition. I don't care about ads or commercials at this time -- being able to watch legitimate, high-quality shows and movies will be a blessing. I'll be waiting patiently!
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Or is Sci-Fi Channel content in a different category than regular NBC/Universal content?
Youtube was ahead of it's time. It was inevitable that the media conglomerates would try to role their own. They will find out exactly how expensive and difficult it is to do this type of site and predictably the small players and producers will eventually go with Youtube and then the major ones will crumble one by one as they strike amicable deals due to customer demand for a single site.
...join 'em.
Hey, I think it's great that NBC would want to get into the video offerings business. Reason why people post copyrighted material to YouTube is so it will be available. NBC has already been making overtures in that direction with some of their shows (like the standup routines from 'Last Comic Standing' S5) and Fox has performances from 'American Idol' on their site, ergo you don't have to go to find a Torrent or browse YouTube et aliis to see what you missed.
And for that reason, NBC's assimilating seems a smarter move than Viacom's bitching, IMHO.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
...will it be called CrapTube?
Who actually watches 45 minute TV shows in a 3inch box on their monitor?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Lawsuit 2.0
...until someone posts these new NBC videos over on YouTube.... I hear NBC will call their site NoobTube.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Almost every discussion about music, movies or TV shows here has countless replies saying "But the industry doesn't GET IT, man!! Their business model is OUTDATED!! If they gave me this content for cheap with no DRM I wouldn't have to pirate it!!"
So here comes an announcement that they'll be putting content online for FREE - and they'll be the ones making the money from the ads, not youtube, which seems only fair to me - and again I see replies of "but the industry doesn't GET IT!!". I think that's kinda funny.
This site could go either way, but to me it's the first indication that they might be starting to "get it".
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Note to NBC and News Corp: it's not a YouTube clone unless you deliver the goods in an easily viewed format (such as Flash) and with no DRM.
I'm pessimistically expecting Windoze Media with lotsa DRM.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
A few months to one year from now, on /.:
NBC Gives Up On YouTube Clone
"Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
Now YouTube can dump all that network junk and free up some disk space.
What?
Don't they own chemical weapon plants in Syria?
it's clear to me that the proof readers are shunning now this article.
I mean, honestly, are they?
To me, it would make a LOT more buisness sensefor these major companies to strike up a deal where full-length shows and such are allowed on their website, however a certain number of links on the main page must go to things from their channels.
It's the best form of advertising; people being able to "try" a "full version" of your product.
For all the degrees and everything that are required for a marketing person high on the chain, they sure are fucking stupid.
Living With a Nerd
people are yelling like this, because they are still not believing it is actually happening.
neither am i.
ill only believe it when i see it.
Read radical news here
if you are embracing the internet revolution, do it just right.
Read radical news here
They think that they can squeeze YouTube out, but since the take down notices, I have not had my YouTube searching impacted at all. I don't spend my day searching for stupid TV shows (that's why I don't watch NBC). There are only a few channels I actually watch, and none of them have shows I watch all the time. TV is going the way of the music industry. They are losing focus on what people want and are following equations to make shows that will make profit. The problem is that people are starting to get smarter and are figuring it out. Why do they think people like fast forwarding the commercials and TIVO is such a hit? People are sick of the current system. Making commercials harder to fast forward and pulling videos from the web only hurts themselves in the long run... to bad they can't think that far ahead.
has 24 and other full fox shows online with LESS ADS then on TV.
Here's the problem. NBC and NewsCorp makes a site. Disney makes a site. Viacom makes a site. Everybody and their brother makes a site. Now, you have a dozen different video sites all making sure that no one else downloads their videos anywhere else. If you want a SNL video, you go to one site. If you want a Daily Show video, it's another site. Download a Pixar clip, another site. That was the big advantage of YouTube. It wasn't like these clips weren't already on the Web. It was the fact you only had to go to a single site to find them.
It would be so much better to make a deal with YouTube. Let Google handle the bandwidth hassle and infrastructure problems. A single mete-site will draw more users, and the money. To make sure there's no monopoly, make deals with other meta-video sites.
Good. The low-information viewers of Fox can gravitate there and leave Youtube to the rest of us who have a clue.
Are they going to grace those of us with IPs outside of the US with the ability to watch said content? I'd bet not (even though I live 45min. north of the US and watch all its TV).
In that case, back to YouTube!
Cue The Sun...
Am I the only one who sees a trend here? With the soon-to-be SpiralFrog and QTrax services, the internet is heading towards an ad-supported future. This can be good in that the consumer doesn't pay for the content, and more things become available to everyday internet users. The downside is that we now have all these annoying ads stuck in our face wherever we go.
IMHO, I think the ad-supported free-ness is better than the clean-paged "premium-membership" ventures out there.
The folks who are really happy today are Akamai, Limelight Networks and Equinix, who supply content distribution network (CDN) and video peering services for NBC/Universal and MySpace. Lots and lots more big video files will be moving to anf from through their networks.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
...claiming that casual piracy like YouTube is the root of the problem.
How does this new video venture make the following statement clear: "...the major players are shunning now YouTube."?
The major players are shunning now YouTube. Google perhaps a bad descision has made? NBC we are, syntax unnecessary is.
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
"It's crap - not community driven. It misunderstands the interest in YouTube."
I think you misunderstand the interest in YouTube. It's not one thing and one thing only.
I think you also misunderstand the intent of the companies for creating this; providing content paid for by ad revenue. Not creating a community driven site.
Nowhere do they say it is to be a YouTube killer; that's the article's author.
"professionally produced video delivered on the sites where they live." -said News Corp.'s President and COO Peter Chernin in a statement. That's not YouTube nor community.
"YouTube is not popular because people are "snagging free stuff" that they already have on their Tivo, etc."
If that's not "why it's popular", then why is the tv content on there in the first place?
"Repackaging the TV is stupid."
How so? In what sense is it stupid? Is producing DVDs of a television series "stupid"?
You may have no use for it but that doesn't mean others don't.
"That is an aspect of YouTube, and the only one that this is a reaction to."
No shit, sherlock.
Why let a competitor distribute your content online when you could do so yourself?
Why let a competitor collect ad revenue from your content when you could do so yourself?
You can argue that they should come to an agreement with YouTube but that's a whole separate issue.
"People who've destroyed their creative thinking process in the marketing field fail to understand this."
Understand what? What customers may want: on-line distribution of content?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nah... I simply think these people haven't learned from history yet. The "dot com" boom era was chock-full of business plans revolving around money that would supposedly come from advertisers. (Remember all those free dial-up services and free email services? Remember the services that promised to pay you to surf, as long as you kept some little advertising bar running at the bottom of your screen?) Yeah... pretty much all gone now.
There is only so much advertising that has any effectiveness on the Internet. We're close to a saturation point now. (Probably only tolerable because people run pop-up ad blockers as standard practice.)
The entire Internet will never become "advertising supported". It simply can't, because advertisers won't keep paying for ads that don't bring in enough new sales to cost-justify them. Broadcasters streaming a new TV show or movie online can certainly insert a few ads, just like the TV airing counterpart has. But that doesn't signify a huge shift towards advertising "taking over" web sites everywhere.
The whole point of youtube is YOU!
it isn't run by big media.
NBC and Alien mothership NewsCorp just don't understand the point of it.
They're using their grammar skills there.
As slashdoters have been saying for years, not making your content available in a convenient form is the best way to guarantee it will be pirated. This is not trying to replace YouTube, it is trying to curb the illegitimate uses of it, by providing an alternative that brings in some revenue. We'll see how well they do, but I wouldn't write it off that quickly. None of the people that I have talked to really care about the ads that are in the shows at nbc.com and abc.com (when the player works properly) - they know the company has to make money, and are happy that the ads are shorter than on TV. In fact they prefer the short ads over the low quality of the YouTube videos. They don't care about being able to download it to their computer, just watching the episode they missed. If it truely is Explorer/Windows only than that would suck, but I don't see where you are getting that from. The fact that they are allowing embedding would strongly suggest that it is going to be flash-based, as it would give them more control with regards to showing ads.
I think this could be very successful at achieving it's goals - which is not to be YouTube killer.
Same as forever. Ads built media, newspapers,radio,TV and Google. It is not direct competition for youtube. But content providers creating thier own sites will prevent youtube from growing beyond funny home videos.
Very few people watch youtube as a substitute for TV, which is the basic assumption of the new site's business model. Why should people watch TV on a relatively small video window when TVs are cheap which handle full-screen full motion video content and cable service (or a pair of rabbit ears) isn't that expensive?
People watch youtube for user-created content, which may be their own videos, content derivative from TV shows and modified into something funnier than the original, or a mixture of the two. Or user repackaged content from TV shows, i.e. 30 seconds of something unusually interesting out of a TV show... often the only interesting 30 seconds.
Given the restrictions on content and user-repackaged material, while I don't think the content providers "get it", I DO expect the content providers will get it. The question isn't whether they'll lose money, the question is how much before they pull the plug.
Tech Public Policy stuff
The entire Internet will never become "advertising supported". It simply can't, because advertisers won't keep paying for ads that don't bring in enough new sales to cost-justify them. Broadcasters streaming a new TV show or movie online can certainly insert a few ads, just like the TV airing counterpart has. But that doesn't signify a huge shift towards advertising "taking over" web sites everywhere.
Yes, but what we see here is not a fully ad-supported model. You get a convenient but handicapped version of the product AFTER the main product was aired (so big bucks advertisers wil still go to the tv premiere for that - I agree tv licensing contracts are quite an issue they'll have to figure out yet) and you get nice space/possibilities for extra ads and even your own ads (DVD box sets, new series et al) with very good target audience placement. This way they're making some nice extra money they would not if people were simply putting it on YouTube. If users really want to get it all in one place, they'll have to face the consequences of that and possibly pay for access to licensed content. That's a lot how cable started, wasn't it?
It's not easy being green.
Just consider NBC's foray into the webspace in 2000: NBCi. It was an utter failure. The upper levels of management had no idea how to approach the internet space. It was laughable but some people made enormous amounts of money. See if you can find some archives from f*ckedcompany.com there are plenty of yummy stories there. NBC should stick to what they are good at --medium gray pap for the masses.