If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   YouTube plans to convince everyone to switch to DailyMotion   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 40
    More: Asinine, YouTube, Twitter, video rental  
•       •       •

5148 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Feb 2013 at 3:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-26 12:29:36 AM  
This is just the Google strategy for making money off the Internet:

1.)  Start with a cutting-edge technology that transforms the world.
2.)  Periodically make it worse.
3.)  Somehow end up with all the world's cash anyway.
 
2013-02-26 01:17:46 AM  
I'm not sure what kind of "channels" they're talking about, but if it "real" ones, like HBO or Comedy Central, I'd be up for it as soon as they had a sufficient number of channels available.  It would be al la carte programming, which most of us have been clamoring for for decades now.

Or is this just privately generated content, Vevo videos and the like?
 
2013-02-26 01:40:55 AM  

timujin: I'm not sure what kind of "channels" they're talking about, but if it "real" ones, like HBO or Comedy Central, I'd be up for it as soon as they had a sufficient number of channels available.  It would be al la carte programming, which most of us have been clamoring for for decades now.



This is the model, Think Netflix
 
2013-02-26 02:31:52 AM  

cretinbob: timujin: I'm not sure what kind of "channels" they're talking about, but if it "real" ones, like HBO or Comedy Central, I'd be up for it as soon as they had a sufficient number of channels available.  It would be al la carte programming, which most of us have been clamoring for for decades now.


This is the model, Think Netflix


If true, this will destroy cable as we know it.  I would happily pay $5/month each to get HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, AMC and FX.  These are the only channels I really watch outside of broadcast ones and those I can get with an HD antenna.
 
2013-02-26 03:38:09 AM  
As long as One Billion people continue to post videos of their cats, YouTube will always exist in some form.
 
2013-02-26 03:40:20 AM  
I'll drop 5 bucks a month if they promise to stop farking around with the format.  Dear God is it getting harder and harder to navigate Youtube these days.  I have to get past piles of paid channels and "suggested" ones(one and the same IMO) just to get to my sub/similar vids list.
 
2013-02-26 03:55:53 AM  
Why would someone pay $5 a month just to be allowed to comment on material posted by someone else?

Also:

Flappyhead: I'll drop 5 bucks a month if they promise to stop farking around with the format.  Dear God is it getting harder and harder to navigate Youtube these days.  I have to get past piles of paid channels and "suggested" ones(one and the same IMO) just to get to my sub/similar vids list.


You'll get over it.
 
2013-02-26 04:02:31 AM  
So what? They are going to charge for content they produce, like Netflix and soon Amazon. It's not like they're going to put user-generated content behind a firewall.
 
2013-02-26 04:03:06 AM  
...or paywall, even.
 
2013-02-26 04:21:09 AM  
The main issue is that most people, when presented with paying $1 for an episode of something or BitTorrent for free, choose BitTorrent. Google has tacitly endorsed piracy for a long time - so the idea of them assuming that more than a token number of people will regularly pay for content they can get for free elsewhere seems like the sort of wishful thinking that gave us Wave and a $1300 Chromebook.

Google's strategy would work if the alternatives weren't available - but they put so much energy into fighting stuff like SOPA that pirate websites are always going to be easier to use and locate than digging out a credit card to pay for a monthly subscription to something.

(though I would like to see the angst generated if Google suddenly started delisting pirate sites once it was *their* revenue model in jeopardy)
 
2013-02-26 04:37:06 AM  
Thanks, Obamacare!
 
2013-02-26 04:41:59 AM  
timujin:
If true, this will destroy cable as we know it.  I would happily pay $5/month each to get HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, AMC and FX.

Well, that's not happening.
 
2013-02-26 05:05:49 AM  

timujin: I'm not sure what kind of "channels" they're talking about, but if it "real" ones, like HBO or Comedy Central, I'd be up for it as soon as they had a sufficient number of channels available.  It would be al la carte programming, which most of us have been clamoring for for decades now.


Actually, YouTube has a deal with Starz for movies on demand, meaning you can rent any movie they offer on your cable VOD on YouTube.  They don't make a big deal about it, but it's there.
 
2013-02-26 05:07:56 AM  

narkor: The main issue is that most people, when presented with paying $1 for an episode of something or BitTorrent for free, choose BitTorrent. Google has tacitly endorsed piracy for a long time - so the idea of them assuming that more than a token number of people will regularly pay for content they can get for free elsewhere seems like the sort of wishful thinking that gave us Wave and a $1300 Chromebook.

Google's strategy would work if the alternatives weren't available - but they put so much energy into fighting stuff like SOPA that pirate websites are always going to be easier to use and locate than digging out a credit card to pay for a monthly subscription to something.

(though I would like to see the angst generated if Google suddenly started delisting pirate sites once it was *their* revenue model in jeopardy)


Tell that to Netflix. They're making quite a bit of money off what they do. Hell, they're included with the latest gaming consoles, smart tv's, even bluray players, etc. There will always be people who'd rather pirate, but if Google can offer high quality content at a reasonable price people will pay for it.
 
2013-02-26 05:21:53 AM  
This is extremely rumor-y.
 
2013-02-26 05:33:25 AM  

IlGreven: timujin: I'm not sure what kind of "channels" they're talking about, but if it "real" ones, like HBO or Comedy Central, I'd be up for it as soon as they had a sufficient number of channels available.  It would be al la carte programming, which most of us have been clamoring for for decades now.

Actually, YouTube has a deal with Starz for movies on demand, meaning you can rent any movie they offer on your cable VOD on YouTube.  They don't make a big deal about it, but it's there.


I didn't know that.  But I'm not talking about pay-per-view, but rather pay-per-channel.

NotEric: timujin:
If true, this will destroy cable as we know it.  I would happily pay $5/month each to get HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, AMC and FX.

Well, that's not happening.


So what is happening?  I didn't get anything from the linked article except that the fees will range from $1 to $5.
 
2013-02-26 05:38:16 AM  

narkor: The main issue is that most people, when presented with paying $1 for an episode of something or BitTorrent for free, choose BitTorrent. Google has tacitly endorsed piracy for a long time - so the idea of them assuming that more than a token number of people will regularly pay for content they can get for free elsewhere seems like the sort of wishful thinking that gave us Wave and a $1300 Chromebook.

Google's strategy would work if the alternatives weren't available - but they put so much energy into fighting stuff like SOPA that pirate websites are always going to be easier to use and locate than digging out a credit card to pay for a monthly subscription to something.

(though I would like to see the angst generated if Google suddenly started delisting pirate sites once it was *their* revenue model in jeopardy)


Maybe if it's $1 an episode, but I seriously doubt that's the plan. It would most likely be a monthly subscription like netflix, and if that's the case there's plenty of people who would pay for that. What sane person would want to go through the hassle of downloading TV shows and movies if you can stream it all for $5 a month?
 
2013-02-26 05:45:34 AM  
SoothinglyDeranged:
Tell that to Netflix. They're making quite a bit of money off what they do. Hell, they're included with the latest gaming consoles, smart tv's, even bluray players, etc. There will always be people who'd rather pirate, but if Google can offer high quality content at a reasonable price people will pay for it.

For the most part, Netflix isn't generating it's own content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_b y_ Netflix ) - the vast majority of it's content is rebroadcasted stuff that other people have produced and licensed to Netflix at a discounted price. Lilyhammer is a co-production and the jury is still out on whether House of Cards will come close to meeting its production costs.

There's a big difference between profitably producing and distributing content and profitably redistributing licensed content.
 
2013-02-26 06:44:29 AM  

IlGreven: timujin: I'm not sure what kind of "channels" they're talking about, but if it "real" ones, like HBO or Comedy Central, I'd be up for it as soon as they had a sufficient number of channels available.  It would be al la carte programming, which most of us have been clamoring for for decades now.

Actually, YouTube has a deal with Starz for movies on demand, meaning you can rent any movie they offer on your cable VOD on YouTube.  They don't make a big deal about it, but it's there.


Really? I have not heard of that. I'll have to check it out.

As for BitTorrent, I'm really farking pissed off because I tried torrenting a couple of new Top Gear episodes last night and I kept getting versions dubbed in German even there was no indication that I was downloading German language versions of the show.

I finally got to see one episode but even that was tainted with some sort of Nordic subtitles which I found incredibly distracting.

And I get kind of paranoid that I'm going to wind up with a demand letter from some lawyers because I was file sharing so I try to be mostly legit. I'm sure this is part of the reason they bring ridiculous lawsuits against people from time to time - it's to keep people like me from downloading everything I can think of.

I don't have a problem paying for Netflix. I wouldn't pay to watch most of the shiat on YouTube, but I might pay them for some things.

timujin: If true, this will destroy cable as we know it.  I would happily pay $5/month each to get HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, AMC and FX.  These are the only channels I really watch outside of broadcast ones and those I can get with an HD antenna.


I'd love to pay $5 for HBO too, but Comcast was charging me $20. And you know, HBO is almost worth that much if I didn't have to pay $100 a month just so I could have the privilege of shelling out another $20 just for HBO.

I don't know about Starz, Cinemax or Showtime, but I would definitely shell out $5 for AMC and FX. That actually sounds like a fair price for those channels.
 
2013-02-26 07:15:37 AM  

Flappyhead: I'll drop 5 bucks a month if they promise to stop farking around with the format.  Dear God is it getting harder and harder to navigate Youtube these days.  I have to get past piles of paid channels and "suggested" ones(one and the same IMO) just to get to my sub/similar vids list.


$20/month each. iTunes already sells season passes to AMC shows for $30/season. YouTube isn't going to undercut to $5 for the entire channel.
 
2013-02-26 07:38:48 AM  

Flappyhead: I'll drop 5 bucks a month if they promise to stop farking around with the format.  Dear God is it getting harder and harder to navigate Youtube these days.  I have to get past piles of paid channels and "suggested" ones(one and the same IMO) just to get to my sub/similar vids list.


If only they had some sort of search engine to help you find the videos you are interested in.
 
2013-02-26 08:17:26 AM  

HotWingAgenda: Why would someone pay $5 a month just to be allowed to comment on material posted by someone else?


because people are stupid, you'd be surprised how many businesses thrive on endless hoards of morans
 
2013-02-26 08:21:58 AM  
That's actually pretty cool. It would be nice if creative people could go out there and make stuff without constantly having to run telethons and begging campaigns. This last generation of film makers was raised in the creative utopia with the tools people like Coppola envisioned would destroy the new Hollywood. There's a chance to rebuild without having to rely on the old paradigm.
 
2013-02-26 08:40:57 AM  
If they are indeed getting TV and movie based content for subscription then I see this as an excellent idea.  If however they think that people are going to pay a subscription fee for the amateur content that mostly makes up Youtube now they have another thing coming.  The channels that get viewed the most are the same ones that make the most from video monetization.  I can think of several channels that work off ad revenue and make enough for several people to do it as a full and or part time job.  So even after Google takes its cut these people make a fair bit of cash.  There is no need to put those channels behind a pay-wall other than greed.
 
2013-02-26 08:55:12 AM  
Yep (buffering......) I'm sure (buffering......) that will (buffering.....) work (buffering....) just fine. (buffering.....)
 
2013-02-26 09:06:19 AM  

Happy Hours: IlGreven: timujin: I'm not sure what kind of "channels" they're talking about, but if it "real" ones, like HBO or Comedy Central, I'd be up for it as soon as they had a sufficient number of channels available.  It would be al la carte programming, which most of us have been clamoring for for decades now.

Actually, YouTube has a deal with Starz for movies on demand, meaning you can rent any movie they offer on your cable VOD on YouTube.  They don't make a big deal about it, but it's there.

Really? I have not heard of that. I'll have to check it out.

As for BitTorrent, I'm really farking pissed off because I tried torrenting a couple of new Top Gear episodes last night and I kept getting versions dubbed in German even there was no indication that I was downloading German language versions of the show.

I finally got to see one episode but even that was tainted with some sort of Nordic subtitles which I found incredibly distracting.

And I get kind of paranoid that I'm going to wind up with a demand letter from some lawyers because I was file sharing so I try to be mostly legit. I'm sure this is part of the reason they bring ridiculous lawsuits against people from time to time - it's to keep people like me from downloading everything I can think of.

I don't have a problem paying for Netflix. I wouldn't pay to watch most of the shiat on YouTube, but I might pay them for some things.


Go to finalgear.com for Top Gear forums and other quality items...
 
2013-02-26 09:20:56 AM  

jonohull: Go to finalgear.com for Top Gear forums and other quality items..


Thank you
 
2013-02-26 11:05:40 AM  
Is it possible this is simply a troll by YouTube? "Let's put this code in and see what happens?"
 
2013-02-26 11:12:36 AM  

timujin: cretinbob: timujin: I'm not sure what kind of "channels" they're talking about, but if it "real" ones, like HBO or Comedy Central, I'd be up for it as soon as they had a sufficient number of channels available.  It would be al la carte programming, which most of us have been clamoring for for decades now.


This is the model, Think Netflix

If true, this will destroy cable as we know it.  I would happily pay $5/month each to get HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, AMC and FX.  These are the only channels I really watch outside of broadcast ones and those I can get with an HD antenna.


You're going to have to pay a LOT more than $5/month each for those channels if they go a la carte.
 
2013-02-26 11:13:55 AM  

SoothinglyDeranged: narkor: The main issue is that most people, when presented with paying $1 for an episode of something or BitTorrent for free, choose BitTorrent. Google has tacitly endorsed piracy for a long time - so the idea of them assuming that more than a token number of people will regularly pay for content they can get for free elsewhere seems like the sort of wishful thinking that gave us Wave and a $1300 Chromebook.

Google's strategy would work if the alternatives weren't available - but they put so much energy into fighting stuff like SOPA that pirate websites are always going to be easier to use and locate than digging out a credit card to pay for a monthly subscription to something.

(though I would like to see the angst generated if Google suddenly started delisting pirate sites once it was *their* revenue model in jeopardy)

Tell that to Netflix. They're making quite a bit of money off what they do. Hell, they're included with the latest gaming consoles, smart tv's, even bluray players, etc. There will always be people who'd rather pirate, but if Google can offer high quality content at a reasonable price people will pay for it.


People pirate House of Cards.  Honestly, it's those douchebags who are going to ruin it for all of us.
 
2013-02-26 01:35:02 PM  

sammyk: Flappyhead: I'll drop 5 bucks a month if they promise to stop farking around with the format.  Dear God is it getting harder and harder to navigate Youtube these days.  I have to get past piles of paid channels and "suggested" ones(one and the same IMO) just to get to my sub/similar vids list.

If only they had some sort of search engine to help you find the videos you are interested in.


You're completely missing my point.  Youtubes old formats used to link you to videos similar to ones you were/had watched, but mixed things up.  You would see a video with 50 views ride beside one with 50,000.  Now it's set up to direct you to the videos with the most views(which are more often then not partners with Youtube) and leaves the smaller channels behind.  Probably 1/3 of my sub lists only exists because of the older listing systems.
 
2013-02-26 02:29:39 PM  

I drunk what: HotWingAgenda: Why would someone pay $5 a month just to be allowed to comment on material posted by someone else?

because people are stupid, you'd be surprised how many businesses thrive on endless hoards of morans


Man, I didn't realize my dig at TotalFark was that subtle.
 
2013-02-26 02:33:32 PM  

timujin: cretinbob: timujin: I'm not sure what kind of "channels" they're talking about, but if it "real" ones, like HBO or Comedy Central, I'd be up for it as soon as they had a sufficient number of channels available.  It would be al la carte programming, which most of us have been clamoring for for decades now.


This is the model, Think Netflix

If true, this will destroy cable as we know it.  I would happily pay $5/month each to get HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, AMC and FX.  These are the only channels I really watch outside of broadcast ones and those I can get with an HD antenna.


$5 each a month is waaaay too much. Our goal should be to make it more affordable, not more expensive.
 
2013-02-26 02:40:51 PM  

Xcott: This is just the Google strategy for making money off the Internet:

1.)  Start with a cutting-edge technology that transforms the world.
2.)  Periodically make it worse.
2.1) Once a service becomes popular, cancel it.
2.2) Give away user's private data until lawsuits are filed.

3.)  Somehow end up with all the world's cash anyway.


FIFY. Not sure how you missed two of the most important steps.
 
2013-02-26 03:28:06 PM  

Bullseyed: timujin: cretinbob: timujin: I'm not sure what kind of "channels" they're talking about, but if it "real" ones, like HBO or Comedy Central, I'd be up for it as soon as they had a sufficient number of channels available.  It would be al la carte programming, which most of us have been clamoring for for decades now.


This is the model, Think Netflix

If true, this will destroy cable as we know it.  I would happily pay $5/month each to get HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, AMC and FX.  These are the only channels I really watch outside of broadcast ones and those I can get with an HD antenna.

$5 each a month is waaaay too much. Our goal should be to make it more affordable, not more expensive.


That's cheaper than what I'm paying now for a bunch of channels I don't watch.  $30 a month for the ones I do beats what I'm shelling out for Directv.
 
2013-02-26 04:05:34 PM  
timujin:
NotEric: timujin:
If true, this will destroy cable as we know it.  I would happily pay $5/month each to get HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, AMC and FX.

Well, that's not happening.

So what is happening?  I didn't get anything from the linked article except that the fees will range from $1 to $5.


You really think HBO, Showtime, FX, AMC, etc., are the second and third tier channels that Youtube would be looking to pull content from?

Or that channels like HBO or Showtime, who reportedly already receive more than $5 a month after the cable and satellite companies take their cut would willingly devalue their brand. Not to mention, they are already partnered with digital distribution partners where they can sell their shows for $2-3 per episode.
 
2013-02-26 04:30:27 PM  
Why would I pay anything for something that is slower than snail shiat? Youtube is unwatchable after 6 PM here in any resolution other than 240, and even then you have to allow a minute for buffering.
 
2013-02-26 06:09:08 PM  

NotEric: timujin:
NotEric: timujin:
If true, this will destroy cable as we know it.  I would happily pay $5/month each to get HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, AMC and FX.

Well, that's not happening.

So what is happening?  I didn't get anything from the linked article except that the fees will range from $1 to $5.

You really think HBO, Showtime, FX, AMC, etc., are the second and third tier channels that Youtube would be looking to pull content from?

Or that channels like HBO or Showtime, who reportedly already receive more than $5 a month after the cable and satellite companies take their cut would willingly devalue their brand. Not to mention, they are already partnered with digital distribution partners where they can sell their shows for $2-3 per episode.


So... again... what is happening?
 
2013-02-26 09:24:22 PM  

KierzanDax: Why would I pay anything for something that is slower than snail shiat? Youtube is unwatchable after 6 PM here in any resolution other than 240, and even then you have to allow a minute for buffering.


farking THIS!  It takes an hour to watch a five minute video that's going to look and sound like it's under water.
 
2013-02-26 09:53:39 PM  

timujin: If true, this will destroy cable as we know it. I would happily pay $5/month each to get HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, AMC and FX. These are the only channels I really watch outside of broadcast ones and those I can get with an HD antenna


Yes. Intel is supposed to be coming out with a device that would allow subscription to singe channels. I also think it'll probably allow some users to charge for subscribers to their channels too, like they have ads now.
In anyevent it has nothing to do with what tardmitter implies.
Meanwhile, if I drop TWC television service and just go with Internet and phone, it costs $3 more a month.

It sounds like some people have really shiatty ISPs or computers/connections or some combination of both.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report