Comments on: YouTube. http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/10/10/youtube/ my semi-regular stream of consciousness Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:20:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Caravaggio http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/10/10/youtube/#comment-6291 Caravaggio Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:54:26 +0000 http://john.jubjubs.net/?p=332#comment-6291 This post is a little bit old, but it was recently the 10th google anniversary, and they are bigger and bigger, and buy more and more companies. Youtube was a big step, and they haven't stop since that. It's scaring the power that G is having. This post is a little bit old, but it was recently the 10th google anniversary, and they are bigger and bigger, and buy more and more companies. Youtube was a big step, and they haven't stop since that. It's scaring the power that G is having.

]]> By: Zach Lipton http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/10/10/youtube/#comment-150 Zach Lipton Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:39:02 +0000 http://john.jubjubs.net/?p=332#comment-150 I've also had the same sense of being somewhat bothered by the deal. For me, it's not just the issue of YouTube profiting off of illegally uploaded content, it's the lack of any regard for the users who posted their own videos and who built the site. At least competitors like Revver have a revenue sharing model that rewards content creators with a share of the ad revenue. When I watched YouTube's "A Message from Chad and Steve" (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVxQ_3Ejkg)," rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVxQ_3Ejkg),</a> I found myself pretty angry. The video is essentially YouTube's founders laughing at their newfound riches. After a while, one of them gets around to remembering to thank the users, the people who actually created the content YouTube profits from, not to mention the people who post the copyrighted material that everyone flocks to the site for. Now I didn't feel so angry over, say, the MySpace deal, where there's sort of a more abstract sense of ownership in one's profile, but here, it seems like a pretty clear-cut case of YouTube cashing out on the backs of its content creators. When Hollywood does it, we call them heartless, but apparently it's called innovation in the Valley. I’ve also had the same sense of being somewhat bothered by the deal. For me, it’s not just the issue of YouTube profiting off of illegally uploaded content, it’s the lack of any regard for the users who posted their own videos and who built the site. At least competitors like Revver have a revenue sharing model that rewards content creators with a share of the ad revenue.

When I watched YouTube’s “A Message from Chad and Steve” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVxQ_3Ejkg), I found myself pretty angry. The video is essentially YouTube’s founders laughing at their newfound riches. After a while, one of them gets around to remembering to thank the users, the people who actually created the content YouTube profits from, not to mention the people who post the copyrighted material that everyone flocks to the site for.

Now I didn’t feel so angry over, say, the MySpace deal, where there’s sort of a more abstract sense of ownership in one’s profile, but here, it seems like a pretty clear-cut case of YouTube cashing out on the backs of its content creators. When Hollywood does it, we call them heartless, but apparently it’s called innovation in the Valley.

]]> By: Zach Lipton http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/10/10/youtube/#comment-5685 Zach Lipton Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:39:02 +0000 http://john.jubjubs.net/?p=332#comment-5685 I've also had the same sense of being somewhat bothered by the deal. For me, it's not just the issue of YouTube profiting off of illegally uploaded content, it's the lack of any regard for the users who posted their own videos and who built the site. At least competitors like Revver have a revenue sharing model that rewards content creators with a share of the ad revenue. <br><br>When I watched YouTube's "A Message from Chad and Steve" (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVxQ_3Ejkg)," rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVxQ_3Ejkg),</a> I found myself pretty angry. The video is essentially YouTube's founders laughing at their newfound riches. After a while, one of them gets around to remembering to thank the users, the people who actually created the content YouTube profits from, not to mention the people who post the copyrighted material that everyone flocks to the site for. <br><br>Now I didn't feel so angry over, say, the MySpace deal, where there's sort of a more abstract sense of ownership in one's profile, but here, it seems like a pretty clear-cut case of YouTube cashing out on the backs of its content creators. When Hollywood does it, we call them heartless, but apparently it's called innovation in the Valley. I’ve also had the same sense of being somewhat bothered by the deal. For me, it’s not just the issue of YouTube profiting off of illegally uploaded content, it’s the lack of any regard for the users who posted their own videos and who built the site. At least competitors like Revver have a revenue sharing model that rewards content creators with a share of the ad revenue.

When I watched YouTube’s “A Message from Chad and Steve” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVxQ_3Ejkg), I found myself pretty angry. The video is essentially YouTube’s founders laughing at their newfound riches. After a while, one of them gets around to remembering to thank the users, the people who actually created the content YouTube profits from, not to mention the people who post the copyrighted material that everyone flocks to the site for.

Now I didn’t feel so angry over, say, the MySpace deal, where there’s sort of a more abstract sense of ownership in one’s profile, but here, it seems like a pretty clear-cut case of YouTube cashing out on the backs of its content creators. When Hollywood does it, we call them heartless, but apparently it’s called innovation in the Valley.

]]> By: Adam Nash http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/10/10/youtube/#comment-149 Adam Nash Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:16:07 +0000 http://john.jubjubs.net/?p=332#comment-149 In the end, it seems like YouTube didn't have any problems (capacity, monetization, legal) that Google Video didn't have. And it sounds like the personality fit with the founders made this a solid fit people-wise. Moritz has a hand here too, right? I've heard this compared to eBay/PayPal, but remember, PayPal was a choice that millions of eBay members made first, before the acquisition. It would have been more comparable if MySpace had bought YouTube, since YouTube is so popular with MySpace users. Then again, they lose their ability to do media-neutral deals. This is definitely a new watermark. The crescendo for Web 2.0 deals is growing... seems like the inevitable irrational exuberance is here. - Adam In the end, it seems like YouTube didn’t have any problems (capacity, monetization, legal) that Google Video didn’t have. And it sounds like the personality fit with the founders made this a solid fit people-wise. Moritz has a hand here too, right?

I’ve heard this compared to eBay/PayPal, but remember, PayPal was a choice that millions of eBay members made first, before the acquisition. It would have been more comparable if MySpace had bought YouTube, since YouTube is so popular with MySpace users. Then again, they lose their ability to do media-neutral deals.

This is definitely a new watermark. The crescendo for Web 2.0 deals is growing… seems like the inevitable irrational exuberance is here.

- Adam

]]> By: Adam Nash http://john.jubjubs.net/2006/10/10/youtube/#comment-5684 Adam Nash Wed, 11 Oct 2006 05:16:07 +0000 http://john.jubjubs.net/?p=332#comment-5684 In the end, it seems like YouTube didn't have any problems (capacity, monetization, legal) that Google Video didn't have. And it sounds like the personality fit with the founders made this a solid fit people-wise. Moritz has a hand here too, right?<br><br>I've heard this compared to eBay/PayPal, but remember, PayPal was a choice that millions of eBay members made first, before the acquisition. It would have been more comparable if MySpace had bought YouTube, since YouTube is so popular with MySpace users. Then again, they lose their ability to do media-neutral deals.<br><br>This is definitely a new watermark. The crescendo for Web 2.0 deals is growing... seems like the inevitable irrational exuberance is here.<br><br>- Adam In the end, it seems like YouTube didn’t have any problems (capacity, monetization, legal) that Google Video didn’t have. And it sounds like the personality fit with the founders made this a solid fit people-wise. Moritz has a hand here too, right?

I’ve heard this compared to eBay/PayPal, but remember, PayPal was a choice that millions of eBay members made first, before the acquisition. It would have been more comparable if MySpace had bought YouTube, since YouTube is so popular with MySpace users. Then again, they lose their ability to do media-neutral deals.

This is definitely a new watermark. The crescendo for Web 2.0 deals is growing… seems like the inevitable irrational exuberance is here.

- Adam

]]>