[FoRK] NewTube VS OldTube

Luis Villa < luis at tieguy.org > on > Tue Oct 10 13:13:26 PDT 2006

I like your analytical approach.

On 10/10/06, Albert S. <albert.scherbinsky at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> I'll try to grok. A successful web venture is a
> combination utility and community. Merely creating
> tools allowing others to host video would be utility
> but not community.
>
> Providing tools within an existing web community
> allows Google to start with critical mass. Having
> control over the community makes it easier to add
> utility.

But limits the extent of the reach of that one community, no? ESPN
will never host their videos on YouTube; that is what they have
espn.com for. If Google drove creation of HTML-for-videos (say, for
example, something like annodex.net) they could index and advertise on
*all* videos; instead they seem to be locking themselves into this one
set of tools and one community, which seems broken to me.

[Tangentially, I'm also not clear how large YouTube's community really
is- sure, it is large, but what percentage of their traffic is from
the 'community', and how much from just random people who link to it
or email their links around? I'm guessing that second group of casual
users is at least an order of magnitude larger, probably two orders.]

[Of course, nothing precludes Google from doing something like Google
Talk and transitioning YouTube over to a more open, indexable
standard, and pushing that standard more broadly, with YouTube less
the central hub and more a leading light. But I guess I'm skeptical
about that route.]

Luis


>
> --- Luis Villa <luis at tieguy.org> wrote:
>
> > More relevantly, standing in Google's corporate
> > shoes, they could have
> > avoided the whole thing by working on tools which
> > allow others to
> > easily host video. If they hosted the whole textual
> > internet they'd
> > get sued left and right; as it is their legal burden
> > is low and they
> > profit off virtually *everyone's* pages, not just
> > the stuff hosted on
> > google pages (which appears to be the route they are
> > going with video,
> > for some reason I don't grok.)
> >
> > Luis
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Albert S. wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Good example. Although, I sympathize with the
> > > > situation YouTube is up against when deciding
> > whether
> > > > to remove content which may be offensive to some
> > > > religeous group. It would be difficult to defend
> > the
> > > > removal and even the non-removal without
> > decending
> > > > into an unproductive religeous argument, which
> > may be
> > > > what they are trying to avoid.
> > > >
> > > > Albert
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > FoRK mailing list
> > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> > >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>

More information about the FoRK mailing list