Floozy Speak!

The other day I decided to put valley wag in the coveted bookmark bar area of safari. This is a choice spot for my attention really. Its a decent blog, not bad, some interesting points. But then today, i came across a piece on youtube, seems once ya get a bit big the target gets larger and large on ya.

I read a post on there about youtube and all and sure enough in classic FU dynamics to you customers out there, the fans of blogs in general, I wanted to comment on something they wrote, so sure I get a nice little icon that says comment on this, but behold, nay you cant! My thoughts must be approved. Personally if you got a blog like this you should welcome any and all comments cause yer getting from page views from other major sites, be open damn it.

So rather than going thru the approval stages to be deemed acceptable, they me comment here on my blog since I cant on valley, geeze wag!?

The charges against youtube via the wag:

It's a money-sucker. YouTube's bandwidth cost was estimated at a million bucks a month..... yadda dadda.Basically its a big 2.0 mystery machine, and? whats new there? Theres bunches of sites out there in the 2.0 realm that are doing the same. Sure sales could be better. I'm sure they are aware of the obvious.

The money's not rolling in. See above...

No one will buy it. YouTube's million a month comes from venture capital. And venture capitalists demand a sale (because a company without a revenue plan sure isn't going public). Dot-com pundit John Battelle nails it: No one needs YouTube. The networks, scared of the aforementioned piracy, won't bite, though they may make cheap distribution deals while the site lasts. Yet theres a considerable population on the service using it everyday. So the biz model isnt ironed out yet. Its not that no one needs it, its clearly needed, they just havent figured out the biz piece, hello webvan, i dunno i mean this kind of effect isnt new. But to say no one needs it, no, theres a crap load of kids that need it everyday.

The press points to the piracy. YouTube doesn't really run on pirated work -- most of this month's most popular vids are original, and most borrowed clips are simple fair-use cases. But to look at media coverage, you wouldn't know that. Every high-profile NBC takedown notice wipes out the press from five hundred original videos. So basically unless yer service is media proof get outa biz. Press points to whatever sells page views and good news doesnt sell, only bad news sells.

It's boring. Speaking of those original videos, it's clear what'll happen when the media buys out all the good vloggers (and some lame ones) as the New York Times reports. The cream of the crop will be rescued from YouTube and installed on TV, in other network-run web sites, or in theaters near you. Eventually Internet video will turn into a churning factory of mediocre talent, and YouTube will be left with the dregs. Assuming it survives and or is needed in the first place by yer thoughts. If original content gets 5000 views and 200 votes, who cares, its content. Cant we look back at the worlds of atomic films, and ifilm for what kind of fate youtube could share? The point is everyone now has a chance, and it could be lame, could be good, but its equal.

The bloggers are revolting. When Boing Boing attacks, and other major blogs join it, who cares whether their criticisms of YouTube are true? The damage is done, and YouTube doesn't have the response team to handle it. Boing Boing writer Xeni Jardin says it took a full day for YouTube to respond to the accusation that it planned to sell its users' videos. Cause lawyers get into the mix, and besides why should they turn on a dime for the press when they mainly point out the dooom and gloom of the biz? I dont like the end user agreement thing either really, but i see yer points as nit picking really, not much substance. The revolt on the web lasted about 2 days, or was 36hrs they say now for everyone to hear the news, and then it was settled, and i dont see it on dig no more, yet youtube thrives on.

You can't get porn. Whatever the gains -- legitimacy, lawsuit avoidance -- from YouTube's no-porn policy, the loss is all the traffic such an offering could bring. It's not like online porn movies are an unproven market. Damn man yer just one massive negative nancy, its holes holes holes for youtube, whos paying yer checkstubb there waggy? I suppose if they had porn yer points would "PORN..." or "press points to porn..." or "no one needs more porn..."

It's ugly. Have you watched a YouTube video lately? The resolution is 2002-quality. Grimey. Gross. Someone else could do better.
Its competitors pay you money. And someone else is doing better, as the Internet video scene becomes a series of YouTubes. Revver slaps an ad at the end of each video. The person submitting that video gets half the revenue. Blip.tv is starting its own 50/50 split. Both beat the hell out of YouTube's 0% split. Has anyone looked at the compeition, doesnt revver have a nasty uploader, and 50meg upload limits? And have you seen the site design behind eefoo or whatever? Its only a matter of time before youtube has either died or got it goin, one thing it has is traffic and fandom, course that seems to be jack to most people out there. Soon wag you'll be writing the same post about revver or blink, provided they ever generate enough traffic or get enough users in the first place.

Sure I use youtube, i mean why not. I just see posts like wags a major rant fest that seems to be motivated by some unknown force, like cash! I dunno, i mean its a pointless post to state the obvious like that. We saw the same thing in the 1.0 days and now here they come again the pointless bashing of the 2.0 days. Hey if it fails it fails.. why not just state that, but instead its sexier to top yer top whatever on why it will die, be the first to state the obvious.. hahah!