Sony Pictures in Talks With YouTube 84
CNet is reporting that Sony Pictures may be in talks with YouTube to license full length movies to the video sharing site. Set to post nearly a half a billion dollars in losses this year, YouTube could certainly use some juice to combat sites like NBC-owned Hulu which already has an array of movies for streaming. "Details about what a final agreement could look like are sparse, but any partnership between the two powerhouses would likely benefit both. Representatives from both companies declined to comment. Word of the negotiations comes a week after Disney announced it had licensed short-form content to YouTube. Those clips will come from a range of Disney brands, including ABC and ESPN. For YouTube, obtaining short-form clips from Disney is an important step but still doesn't provide what YouTube needs most."
Doubtlessly, the pickings therein... (Score:3, Funny)
...will make the most mediocre offerings on Netflix instant viewing seem absolutely stellar by comparison.
YouTube nearly bankrupt? (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Set to post nearly a half a billion dollars in losses this year
Youtube is the most-popular video site. It should be making hand-over-fist in dollars. How can this be?
Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Monetization doesn't mean what you think it means.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Monetize 1. To convert into money. 2. To convert from securities into currency that can be used to purchase goods and services.
Investopedia Commentary
For example, you'll often hear Internet marketers talk about "monetizing website visitors." This is another way of saying that the marketers are trying to figure out a way of making money from website visitors, such as through advertising, e-commerce, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying that you should have to pay somebody to constantly watch your car so that when people write chapters of Harry Potter in the dirt on it they can wash it off. They don't control what users put up.
I know... awful car analogy.
Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because youtube typically has no adverts on user submitted videos. If google made money off of copyright material they'd be looking at big lawsuits. So they typically only have advertising on licensed content. They need more deals like the one suggested to deliver more advertising revenue.
Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being most-popular is not an advantage when no one has figured out how to profit from it. Most-popular means highest costs in bandwidth, servers, etc.
Ad spend is shrinking globally. How exactly is YouTube going to make money when everyone and their dog uses their servers and bandwidth for free?
Reminds me of the dotcom boom... sure, we're losing money on every transaction, but we'll make up for it in volume.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is YouTube going to make money when everyone and their dog uses their servers and bandwidth for free?
Well, the users are already paying to their ISPs for their bandwidth. Couldn't Youtube demand a cut of that, or at least get "free" bandwidth for better quality service to the provider's customers?
If the ISPs don't cooperate, Youtube could always downgrade the videos or display adds like "Your XX ISP doesn't want to play ball which might mean more costs to you. May we recommend this YY provider in your area?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the users are already paying to their ISPs for their bandwidth. Couldn't Youtube demand a cut of that, or at least get "free" bandwidth for better quality service to the provider's customers?
If the ISPs don't cooperate, Youtube could always downgrade the videos or display adds like "Your XX ISP doesn't want to play ball which might mean more costs to you. May we recommend this YY provider in your area?"
So it's cool if you break net neutrality rules if it's in Google's favor? Sheesh...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Though, I wonder how Vimeo does then? They only allow 1 HD video / week nowadays and "just" 500 MB / week or something such, but anyway, has always had much higher quality than youtube.
Guess they may have much less people just browsing from video to video though.
Re: (Score:2)
For Vimeo, if you pay you can upload more HD movies, so that is one possible source of revenue.
I do like Vimeo a lot more than YouTube.
Re: (Score:1)
Still the free things kicks youtubes butt, they even let people download the original video!
Vimeo is strict (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
they even let people download the original video
youtube-dl [bitbucket.org] - you can grab the HD videos too.
Re: (Score:1)
Except, like, you know, any such solutions will only save the re-encoded flash video and not the original video.
Yeah, you can save the flash file.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you missed the HD part of my comment. What I have seen so far is that the HD version will be an MP4 containing a Quicktime stream. It's not flash video junk.
Re: (Score:1)
I saw the HD part but assumed it was still flash.
Though flash video can still contain content of decent quality, such as H.264 + AAC or something such (use &fmt=18.)
May still have been re-encoded though, Vimeo let you download true original, not just a decent format.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
YouTube makes virtually nothing in advertising and have extraordinarly high bandwidth cost. Short videos, like the majority of the ones on YouTube, are difficult to monetize. People won't wait through a 30 second video ad, so the best you can do is overlays and advertising outside the video.
For full length quality content, like that featured on Hulu people will have the patience to wait through 4-5 15 second ads over the length of a 45 minute TV show. Hulu is also able to snatch up traffic from people that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hulu's quality pales in comparison to that of a decent encode you could:
Make yourself
Download from the intertubes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most people would much rather directly stream a fairly high quality video, than wait 3 hours for some pixelated piece of crap rared into 50 different password protected files.
I don't know where you've been pirating, but the worst case is 50 different non-protected rar files. Quality is generally very good, much better than Hulu. Additionally, I can play it wherever I want, without an Internet connection, without waiting through 15-30 seconds of ad at every seek, on any video player that can handle it -- which means my own keybindings, not Hulu's -- oh, and Flash sucks for video, compared to just about any standalone video player.
I stopped watching Naruto when it got picked up by
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
They said it themselves with their repeated attempts to screw their customers
Re: (Score:1)
Re:See no evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If I had any mod points available, I'd flag you as off topic. You don't have to be a Libertarian to hate the government, but it helps.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
I think he needs to be filled with the content more than they do
I just had a look at Hulu (Score:5, Insightful)
I just had a look at Hulu and got this:
Google combating who? The only competition is torrent.
Re:I just had a look at Hulu (Score:5, Insightful)
Google combating the licensors of the content, who wish their distribution channels in non-US markets to remain free of easy, legal online competition. Pandora has the same issue with streaming audio.
Hulu competes with bt for content delivery, but is also competes with DVDs, VHS, movie theaters, etc. That last one is pretty important -- many movies are just hitting theaters overseas when DVDs or online distribution is released to the US market.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah right.
It'd be in a .DLM wrapper (DownLoadMax) with the Super Downloaded Video codec for video and SDDS and ATRAC for the audio tracks.
Also, you'd need an SDVF (Super Downloaded Video File) player to play it. The logo would look neat but you'd never see it on any consumer device from anyone but Sony.
BluRay titles from Sony will feature a digital copy of the film in SDV format, but you will still have to download them to a super memory stick super. All you get is an authorization code. Some collector'
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: This is slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am referencing betamax, sdds, super audio cd, minidisc, umd, memory stick pro, and other sony abortions).
Yes, that'll definitely get you some mod points around these parts.
(Hint: I am referencing the fact that you are making hyperbolic statements to get attention.)
Re: (Score:2)
I really can't imagine a more useless combination than h264/vorbis.
If you don't care about patents, h264 and aac+ should be fine. If you do, you'd probably want theora/vorbis, or dirac/vorbis.
And you're right, I hate Flash. Unfortunately, the alternative (if Sony did it) is much, much, worse.
YouTube isn't a Company (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be clear. YouTube isn't set to post anything, let alone a loss. Google as a whole will post huge profits again, albeit below last year, and that will be that.
Re: (Score:2)
And Youtube will post a profit or loss -- whether that is disclosed to the public is another matter (and most likely will not be disclosed), but you can bet your bottom dollar that Youtube will post a loss (or gain
Re: (Score:2)
Only for certain values of "EVERYONE", surely? After all, the guys making the money aren't going to lose. More ads might start to help the situation, without really hampering the user experience. And an upgradable paid service (e.g. you can upload up to n videos with a free account; upgrade to a paid account for more) would bring in some revenue without completely shutting out any users. A lot of what's on YouTube is duplicated content - setting a limit on free uploads would surely streamline the service fo
And the players line up.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sony and it's empire vs. Microsoft and Disney and ABC on the other. Paramount is on the Hulu/Xbox side, owning NBC which really started moving so much of its stuff to Hulu, all the SNL episodes and lots of its archive stuff.
This fight will expand to be a USA vs. the world thing. If I am over at Google/Youtube my strategy is to take licensing outside the states. Get international content exclusive to Youtube with the Playstation tie in. Get broadband deals done with the major providers in Europe. Isolate the Hulu guys to providing US content only.
Content is king, and it's like suddenly everyone realized the general public couldn't do it. There are only so many videos of your guild's Epic WoW raid or cats flushing toilets that will hold an ad revenue stream in place.
Sony can really break the Hulu grip if they eschew any embedded commercials in the video streams. Grab Fox Studios and maybe Lionsgate, get New Line Cinema and it's game over.
Should be interesting...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This fight will expand to be a USA vs. the world thing.
Cool. Maybe in 5 years those involved will make a videogame out of it. You can be a Sony exec with a briefcase full of rootkits, a Google exec with a "Don't Be Evil" shield, a YouTube coder who can disappear in the San Bruno fog and respawn safely at Tanforan... [wikipedia.org]
Vote of No Confidence (Score:1, Funny)
Getting pretty sick of hearing these types of stories...Maybe the internet needs a bailout? I mean afterall, if a company posts losses, that must mean they're in trouble right? It can't possibly mean anything else like a shifting interest or more competition or declining quality offerings...it's always too big to fail.
I really hope youtube tanks but only after Sony buys it. Then I hope Radioshack buys Sony, then tanks and closes. Then Ruphert Murdoch will buy everyones trash, then he'll tank, then we'll be
Sony Pictures + YouTube (Score:2)
So soon it will be possible to watch blocky, smeary versions of all the Spider-Man films in a web browser. Awesome!
What it REALLY needs (Score:1, Insightful)
For YouTube, obtaining short-form clips from Disney is an important step but still doesn't provide what YouTube needs most.
Porn.
Signs (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
feature length YouTube movie? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno - I could watch the dramatic chipmunk [youtube.com] for hours without getting bored, which is more than can be said for Stuart Little...
Re: (Score:2)
Life with Goo Ray (Score:2)
It's going to be a 320x240 version of HD, with the word HD in a small button in the lower right. When you click it, it expands to 400x300, wow!
All the movies transferred to Goo Ray are going to be defocused, underexposed, shaken, & the audio muffled for the Goo Tube look you've come to expect.
More of this in the next two weeks (Score:3, Interesting)
I also prophesise that YouTube/Google will not understand broadcast timecodes and will require everything in simple seconds, to two decimal places. Why do they need timecodes? To know where to insert the advertising of course. Will users be able to skip the advertising mid-roll? Not a chance. And what problems will timecodes in seconds, with two decimal places, create? I believe we'll see adverts inserted at the incorrect places as different frame rates between PAL, NTSC and film content are not taken into account, or ad breaks that are placed in content at obvious points like fades/transitions/mixes (whatever you'd like to call them) will be a few frames incorrect, so the transition will happen slightly before or after the ad break.
I also predict that YouTube won't really understand about TV resolution and will request everything at 640x480 frame size, rather than say 720x576 for PAL. I predict they may also have problems dealing with Full Height Anamorphic content, but of course that's just a hunch.
Don't ask me how I know, just looking into my crystal ball you understand.......