You Want To See Fickle?
First on the list of concerns was the legal trouble people seemed to think Google was paying for the privilege of dealing with. But its not really any problem at all, thanks, ironically, to the DMCA that some of the content holders had worked so hard for. (dee brought this up in a comment here Daily Placebo: If You Can't Trust Bloggers...)
Next up is the massive payoff that Google appears to have given the RIAA just before the acquisition. Its a pretty shady deal that doesn't really reflect well on anyone involved.
Basically they've got an exclusive online licensing of RIAA music for six months on YouTube, which will help grow the site because of its desirable content. But its not technically a licensing contract; the RIAA has just agreed not to say anything when their stuff shows up in an unlicensed YouTube video. This means two things: 1) the RIAA will not be passing on the millions they just got to the artists who's 'interests' they are 'protecting' and 2) the RIAA will continue to be a watchdog of other online copyright violations, thus making YouTube more valuable and driving the competition into hiding. (are we not being evil still?)
Okay, so now in my mind Google Video and YouTube are the same thing. It doesn't matter that they're not. Sure YouTube will " operate independently to preserve its successful brand" but they're not really competing any more. Any perceived competition will be feigned; they're the same company. Google Video will most likely branch into a production video hosing site with corporate sponsors, while YouTube remains the peoples' video host.
One of the things I think really worked well between the two was a sense of one-ups-manship. Google video introduced the player, YouTube had a site redesign, Google encouraged embedded video, YouTube revamped their player. It really seemed like they were vying for the same market share of social video networking.
What really set me off in writing this was an article about Yahoo!. They're trying to patent "interestingness" as a tool for rating their flickr material. I don't really care about that right now (it sounds pretty silly) but there was a statement that got me thinking.
If that happens, though, the end-result could actually end up damaging Yahoo just as much as others. As we've seen from recent reports about people losing interest in various social networks, the way to keep people interested is to keep innovating and offering something new. Having competition helps make companies continue to innovate and makes every one of the products better.
Labels: google, social networking










0 Comments:
Post a Comment