Comments on: Google to acquire YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock http://vanlandw.com/archives/90 Talga Vassternich Thu, 10 May 2012 03:59:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: bun http://vanlandw.com/archives/90/comment-page-1#comment-1413 bun Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:37:47 +0000 http://vanlandw.com/?p=90#comment-1413 n00bs n00bs

]]> By: vanlandw http://vanlandw.com/archives/90/comment-page-1#comment-1412 vanlandw Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:11:22 +0000 http://vanlandw.com/?p=90#comment-1412 LMAO AT teh gunz....that picture is absolutely hysterical jja makes a fantastic point btw....google video pretty much is a way for video's to be put online and watched/purchased youtube is more of a community...and people seem to like that stuff these days ;-) LMAO AT teh gunz….that picture is absolutely hysterical

jja makes a fantastic point btw….google video pretty much is a way for video’s to be put online and watched/purchased

youtube is more of a community…and people seem to like that stuff these days ;-)

]]> By: Jeff http://vanlandw.com/archives/90/comment-page-1#comment-1410 Jeff Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:46:00 +0000 http://vanlandw.com/?p=90#comment-1410 I think that Rusty is wrong about why YouTube succeed where Google failed. In that it is not the time restriction that mattered, so much as the unregulation of videos. Only recently has Google allowed people to post videos without at least some level of approval process. Furthmore, Google video has lacked the social aspects of youtube, so the the ability to comment, view friends videos, etc... Basically, google looked at it from a perspective of how can we make money from this? Whereas YouTube looked at it from the perspective of what do users want? I think that Rusty is wrong about why YouTube succeed where Google failed. In that it is not the time restriction that mattered, so much as the unregulation of videos. Only recently has Google allowed people to post videos without at least some level of approval process.

Furthmore, Google video has lacked the social aspects of youtube, so the the ability to comment, view friends videos, etc…

Basically, google looked at it from a perspective of how can we make money from this? Whereas YouTube looked at it from the perspective of what do users want?

]]> By: adam http://vanlandw.com/archives/90/comment-page-1#comment-1409 adam Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:07:52 +0000 http://vanlandw.com/?p=90#comment-1409 for you, wes: http://i.somethingawful.com//sasbi/2006/09/jumpman16/Ape-Agitator2.jpg for you, wes:
http://i.somethingawful.com//sasbi/2006/09/jumpman16/Ape-Agitator2.jpg

]]> By: bun http://vanlandw.com/archives/90/comment-page-1#comment-1404 bun Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:30:36 +0000 http://vanlandw.com/?p=90#comment-1404 i think there is a valid argument that youtube succeeded where video.google failed *because* of its time restrictions. think about how often you go to youtube vs. google video. now think about how often you watch a full half-hour clip on google. when i go online, i inhale hundreds, sometimes thousands of headlines, comments, ideas, and any other kind of content. i can spend all day online, but *very* rarely do I spend more than 15 minutes at one site. the ONE exception to that is youtube- not because of the length of the content, but because of how easy it is to take in, interact with, and move on. I think I represent most people our age when I not only want, but DEMAND that my content be customized, diverse, and quick. if I want full-quality video I'll use netflix. the only way i'll stream long-term content to my box is if/when the technology improves to a point at which I can barely tell teh difference between a dvd or blue ray disc and the media i'm pulling directly from your server. youtube has also done a much better job of creating a social community, and as a result is pregnant with advertising possibilities. it tracks your every move, and if google keeps pushing this content the way of teh interw3b 2.0, I'll keep using "gootube". i think there is a valid argument that youtube succeeded where video.google failed *because* of its time restrictions. think about how often you go to youtube vs. google video. now think about how often you watch a full half-hour clip on google. when i go online, i inhale hundreds, sometimes thousands of headlines, comments, ideas, and any other kind of content. i can spend all day online, but *very* rarely do I spend more than 15 minutes at one site. the ONE exception to that is youtube- not because of the length of the content, but because of how easy it is to take in, interact with, and move on. I think I represent most people our age when I not only want, but DEMAND that my content be customized, diverse, and quick. if I want full-quality video I’ll use netflix. the only way i’ll stream long-term content to my box is if/when the technology improves to a point at which I can barely tell teh difference between a dvd or blue ray disc and the media i’m pulling directly from your server. youtube has also done a much better job of creating a social community, and as a result is pregnant with advertising possibilities. it tracks your every move, and if google keeps pushing this content the way of teh interw3b 2.0, I’ll keep using “gootube”.

]]> By: vanlandw http://vanlandw.com/archives/90/comment-page-1#comment-1402 vanlandw Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:05:12 +0000 http://vanlandw.com/?p=90#comment-1402 Name recognition is very powerful I do agree there. Also I don't use any of other video sites other then if I'm provided a link there. YouTube really is quite popular and google will I'm sure make truck loads of money. I bet after the purchase you will see a lot more advertising and HOPEFULLY more features. I would love to see youtube allow longer videos again (the 10 min limit is BS and a big distractor from using the service). Also I am hoping better quality videos. Half the vidz on their site are almost unviewable because the quality is so poor. Speed to some people is important. I don't mind waiting 20-30 seconds sometimes to have a better quality video. Russ also makes a good piont with fair use. That will be for the courts to decide when the time comes IMHO. Clearly I don't think it's going to make a big difference to users for awhile other then more adverts Name recognition is very powerful I do agree there. Also I don’t use any of other video sites other then if I’m provided a link there. YouTube really is quite popular and google will I’m sure make truck loads of money.

I bet after the purchase you will see a lot more advertising and HOPEFULLY more features. I would love to see youtube allow longer videos again (the 10 min limit is BS and a big distractor from using the service). Also I am hoping better quality videos. Half the vidz on their site are almost unviewable because the quality is so poor. Speed to some people is important. I don’t mind waiting 20-30 seconds sometimes to have a better quality video.

Russ also makes a good piont with fair use. That will be for the courts to decide when the time comes IMHO.

Clearly I don’t think it’s going to make a big difference to users for awhile other then more adverts

]]> By: hw http://vanlandw.com/archives/90/comment-page-1#comment-1399 hw Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:59:09 +0000 http://vanlandw.com/?p=90#comment-1399 I bet Google will use YT to sell studio movies, much like iTunes. I don't see Google making any money on this in a long time if they don't. Sure, YT is to "internet videoz", but in the same way that Napster is to "music" and pets.com is to "pets". The difference with "vanbergs" analogy is that ipods and tivos and madden are things that you actually buy and are mostly cool to have. I would have to assume that the partnerships with all the major media groups means that they aren't going to be sued on copyright issues - regardless, 1.6 billion frosties is alot, imho. I bet Google will use YT to sell studio movies, much like iTunes. I don’t see Google making any money on this in a long time if they don’t. Sure, YT is to “internet videoz”, but in the same way that Napster is to “music” and pets.com is to “pets”. The difference with “vanbergs” analogy is that ipods and tivos and madden are things that you actually buy and are mostly cool to have. I would have to assume that the partnerships with all the major media groups means that they aren’t going to be sued on copyright issues – regardless, 1.6 billion frosties is alot, imho.

]]> By: vanbergs http://vanlandw.com/archives/90/comment-page-1#comment-1397 vanbergs Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:56:34 +0000 http://vanlandw.com/?p=90#comment-1397 "It was one of its last official acts as an independent company. And many insiders agree that the step YouTube took hours before agreeing to be bought out by Google was a very important move." "It struck a series of deals to license content from two major record companies. The deals with Vivendi Universal Music Group and Sony B-M-G Music Entertainment will let the Web site post music videos and content from users that includes copyrighted material in exchange for sharing ad revenue. Meanwhile, Warner Music and Sony B-M-G have struck separate licensing deals with Google. Financial details of the deals were not disclosed. Google is buying YouTube for one-point-six-five (b) billion dollars in stock." To me they did a good job of covering their bases. It doesn't matter how many copycats there are, the very branding of the word "YouTube" is synonymous with "Internet/user-based video sharing". Whenever you talk about DVR's, all you think of is a Tivo. Same with iPods and mp3 players, same with football games and Madden. Same with...you get the idea. Google spent a shit ton of money to receive a shit ton MORE money through ads and an even stronger internet presence. “It was one of its last official acts as an independent company. And many insiders agree that the step YouTube
took hours before agreeing to be bought out by Google was a very important move.”

“It struck a series of deals to license content from
two major record companies. The deals with Vivendi Universal Music Group and Sony B-M-G Music Entertainment will let the Web site post music videos and content from users that includes copyrighted material in exchange for sharing ad revenue. Meanwhile, Warner Music and Sony B-M-G have struck separate licensing deals with
Google. Financial details of the deals were not disclosed. Google is buying YouTube for one-point-six-five (b) billion dollars in stock.”

To me they did a good job of covering their bases. It doesn’t matter how many copycats there are, the very branding of the word “YouTube” is synonymous with “Internet/user-based video sharing”. Whenever you talk about DVR’s, all you think of is a Tivo. Same with iPods and mp3 players, same with football games and Madden. Same with…you get the idea. Google spent a shit ton of money to receive a shit ton MORE money through ads and an even stronger internet presence.

]]> By: bun http://vanlandw.com/archives/90/comment-page-1#comment-1394 bun Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:21:06 +0000 http://vanlandw.com/?p=90#comment-1394 i dont know. on the one hand i can see how putting a clip of someone else's content can be considered fair use... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairuse#Fair_use_on_the_Internet and small-time film makers use this all the time. a famous example was that atheist guy who showed a clip of gibson's "passion" in his documentary to point out the mainstream use of what is traditionally catholic imagery. i can see how limited "quotation" for academic purposes should be legal. i think this extends in many cases to users posting content to youtube. http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/04/the-clicker-youtube-and-fair-use-a-match-made-in-heaven/ etc. on the other hand, when content owners complain, youtube will take the video down, no-questions-asked. i once posted a clip of deadwood season 3 - a day after the original episode aired. hbo filed a complaint, and it was gone after having been up only a week (they didnt complain about my clips from seasons 1 and 2). these are some reasons, at least, why google may not be getting into that much legal trouble. i dont know. on the one hand i can see how putting a clip of someone else’s content can be considered fair use…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairuse#Fair_use_on_the_Internet

and small-time film makers use this all the time. a famous example was that atheist guy who showed a clip of gibson’s “passion” in his documentary to point out the mainstream use of what is traditionally catholic imagery. i can see how limited “quotation” for academic purposes should be legal. i think this extends in many cases to users posting content to youtube.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/04/the-clicker-youtube-and-fair-use-a-match-made-in-heaven/ etc.

on the other hand, when content owners complain, youtube will take the video down, no-questions-asked. i once posted a clip of deadwood season 3 – a day after the original episode aired. hbo filed a complaint, and it was gone after having been up only a week (they didnt complain about my clips from seasons 1 and 2). these are some reasons, at least, why google may not be getting into that much legal trouble.

]]>