YouTube Gets Googled

[Doog]

Popular video hosting site http://www.youtube.com has been sold to search engine behemoth Google for a reported 833 million pounds.

Read about it here

and

Watch about it here

What do you guys think? Is it good news or bad news for the future of the YouTube site (which I myself frequently use)

[Twitch]

Was reading about it here in the paper. Voted don't know, but I think it may be good for them, except for copyright infringments, a problem youtube is already facing.Will be watching closely as this kind of thing interests me, like Rubert Murdoc buying Myspace..You beat me to it, as I was going to put up the same poll.

[mazdog]

i don't like it.
i thought this country used to have laws preventing corporations from becoming these giant mega-corps. The power needs to be spread out, not all controlled by a small few billionares.

This is not as bad as Murdoch buying MySpace....that just disgusts me.

[Doog]

Didn't know about the Murdoch/MySpace takeover. I'm sure MySpace also has a vast number of users (quite a few on this forum too).

Always seems to happen that way. You get into something and then something happens that could potentially blow it all to smithereens.

Big rumour going about that Google may actually charge users for the privelege of using YouTube (at least it seems to be the opinion of many who have commented on the video shown in my original post)

Wowsers

[711]

Only good can come of this. Google Video (video.google.com) has long had a much higher reputation than youtube, which a much more intelligent community, and much better user interface. A merge between the better and the more popular services means a big popular, good service.

Keyhole was a very choppy program before google purchased it and called it Google Earth, and everyone seems to love google earth. Gmail is the leading e-mail service in quality, with highest user feedback. Froogle is the most trusted and easiest to use free global shopping search engine. Google has done nothing but good for the world wide web.

In fact, when I read in the paper that google was going purchase youtube, I started thinking about the future of Google. Google's become a huge global corporation in just 10 years, reaching fortune 500 status in under a year of becoming a publicly traded corporation, with over $10 billion cash onhand, and yet they've never made a wrong move, always benefiting the people.

I suspect soon they'll start buying out other corporations, and eventually they'll buy out a tier 1 internet carrier like qwest, savvis, or global crossing, which might very well be the best thing to happen to the internet since IPv4. What people don't realize, is that supercorporations like sprint and verizon, who own over 80% of the internet together (see my footnote on this) have far more than enough yearly profit to build out and expand their networks to the benefit of the people. But they don't, out of greed. I suspect google would want to change this, because they know what's good for the people is good for them. People trust google, because google is good to them. It creates loyalty.

FOOTNOTE:
An issue you should be far more concerned with is Network Neutrality. It "mega corporations" like Verizon and Sprint that are spending millions upon millions of dollars lobbying to pass bills that would allow the network owners to create a "subscriber internet". Do you know what that means? That means that the network owners (who provide transit to ISPs) will get to control how fast certain webservices are allowed to transit information over "their" pipes. So say Yahoo pays Sprint for priority transit. That means google will load slower. Say Starz pays Verizon for priority transit. HBO will load slower. Say Qwest signs an exclusive contract with the BBC. That means if your ISP buys transit from Qwest, you'll either get very slow speeds with ABC, or you won't be able to connect to ABC at all, forcing you to use the BBC, because the BBC are a premium subscriber.

Network neutrality is what prevents this from having already happened, but the major networks are lobbying to pass legislation to allow this sort of thing to happen.

FOOTNOTE 2:
And I don't understand why you're so upset about newscorp's aqquisition of intermix; newscorp, viacom and timewarner own practically every media outler and major community webspace there is.

But yeah, sorry for the essay. I just don't like false speculation and misunderstanding and misjudgements and all that.

EDIT: Doog, I MUST clarify that google does NOT intend to charge user to use the service, that's just gossip baloney. The rumor started because it was made mention of in newspapers that google currently allows subscribers to sell high quality videos over google video. For example, CBS may want to make an episode of 60 minutes available for viewing over google video for $2.99. This is currently how google video works, and it remains hugely popular.

[Doog]

I've been on the Google Video Site a few times and I have seen certain videos that they charge for and quite a few others that they don't, so if it all pans out as the very informed 711 says, then I agree that it could be good.

Once again making a lot of good points.

[mazdog]

nothing is FREE....EVER!!!

giant corporations are evil and greedy....all of them.

[711]

Thanks for the ups, doog. And maz, you may be right, we can never really know. It's just Google's given us very little reason not to trust them so far. =D

[mazdog]

ok....DuPont seemed to be a real nice guy back in the day too.

power always leads to more power which leads to greed and more power and more greed and the cycle just goes and goes and goes. I admire your optimism but i see the world in a different light.

[Mark_d]

at the same time i bet those 2 guys dont really give a shit about any of this, they have 833 million pounds ha ha

[Doog]

And I had no idea that YouTube had only been up and running for about 2 years. The internet is clearly where the real money is these days.

[Punkindrublic]

Give it time.. Google will be knocking on Lemming's door with a big cheque one day!

[Stygian23]

i thought this country used to have laws preventing corporations from becoming these giant mega-corps. The power needs to be spread out, not all controlled by a small few billionares.

Unfortunately, 'dog, this isn't the case. There are laws preventing companies from dominating one area (monopolies), but conglomerates are the way around these laws. While companies no longer try to dominate one area (like Standard Oil or U.S. Steel), they now try to purchase as many different companies as possible. So in effect we have gone from dozens of monopolies in different fields to a handful of companies that are becoming economic monopolies across different fields. Eventually, governments will fall and the rule of law will fall under private police of Corporations that begin to dominate different geographic areas. Corporations are the nation-states of the future.

[711]

Eventually, governments will fall and the rule of law will fall under private police of Corporations that begin to dominate different geographic areas. Corporations are the nation-states of the future.

Sounds like dystopian mumbo jumbo if you ask me.

[mazdog]

Eventually, governments will fall and the rule of law will fall under private police of Corporations that begin to dominate different geographic areas. Corporations are the nation-states of the future.

yeah that is what i was gettin at.

7-11 if you seriously think that this is NOT the direction of the world economy....well you have a lot more living to do...it will either be CHina or these 'private police' it may not happen soon or fast but it is happening!!!