Comments on: Did Murdoch just KO Google?

By: thinks » Blog Archive » Did News Corp. kill the video star?

thinks » Blog Archive » Did News Corp. kill the video star? — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:03:09 +0000

[...] at NewTeeVee has an interesting post discussing why the News Corp./NBC joint venture is going to put GooTube on the ropes. Robert is not, alas, the late star of Marcus Welby and Father Knows Best, but the irony of a [...]

By: » Google vs. MySpace: Is YouTube doomed? | Digital Markets | ZDNet.com

Tue, 22 May 2007 22:36:53 +0000

[...] not: “Did Murdoch just KO Google?” Robert Young [...]

By: What if Redstone “Googled” Murdoch? » Publishing 2.0

What if Redstone “Googled” Murdoch? » Publishing 2.0 — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:45:18 +0000

[...] is the greatest platform for efficient allocation of attention in the history of media. But its text-based algorithms break down for video content. What Google lacks for the first time, in this new video space, is content. Unlike text content, [...]

By: GigaOM » What if Redstone ‘Googled’ Murdoch?

GigaOM » What if Redstone ‘Googled’ Murdoch? — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:00:28 +0000

By: Dave Liu dot com / musings from the edge » Articles of the Day

Dave Liu dot com / musings from the edge » Articles of the Day — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:38:36 +0000

[...] Google Won’t Dominate Video Like Text – There’s no guarantee Google will continue its domination of the Internet. A search leader’s success comes down to PageRank and AdWords, a pair of technologies built on text. Searchable, advertizable video represents the next Internet land grab, which means Google is in trouble if it can’t translate its text success to moving images. Why? Because with video, Google has to deal with content owners and strike licensing deals and agreements, something that big media firms are reluctant to do with a company clearly so bent on Web-wide domination. [...]

By: Visible.Mobi

Visible.Mobi — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:35:50 +0000

Whoever comes up with a technology to search VIDEO has a lot of gain…

By: chrisco

chrisco — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:50:30 +0000

Here’s my take: Most people are having a field day pissing on this whole “big media” collaboration. That means expectations are low. That means an upside surprise is easier. My money’s on an upside surprise. Big time. Thoughts / comments?

Cheers,
chrisco

PS: I wonder what they’re going to name this thing when it comes out? If you were “big media” what would you call your video site? StupidMadeUpNameThatNoboyCanRemember.com? I don’t think so. In fact, I think they’d get maximum impact by taking a big slap at all the stupid Web 2.0 names that are so prevalent now that they’re a joke. I mean everybody and their dog has had their turn at that crap it’s stupid (and boring and annoying). I say what would stand out is a clean, simple and descriptive name. I mean in a land where everyone is using stupid made up names the way to stand out is with the opposite of that. I.e. if you are going to have a site showing big media video, why not call it what it is. Everyone will remember the name and know what’s there: Big Media Video. I.e. BigMediaVideo.com. Seems like a “duh” to me. http://www.bigmediavideo.com

By: infinite dreams (alpha) » Did Murdoch just KO Google?

infinite dreams (alpha) » Did Murdoch just KO Google? — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:03:07 +0000

[...] een mooi artikel op NewTeeVee wordt uitgelegd waarom Murdoch alle grote TV networks tot samenwerking aanspoort. Zo’n [...]

By: Jack Roberts

Jack Roberts — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:14:43 +0000

To label Google as strictly a text based search engine is quite misleading. Google co-owns and majority controls You Tube. Google is using new sets of server decks with video image sorting capabilties that has Google way out in front of any competitors and leading the charge to power video search for years to come.

By: Rupert's Master Plan « VCMike’s Blog

Rupert's Master Plan « VCMike’s Blog — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:04:17 +0000

[...] Master Plan Jump to Comments Robert Young has a good post today on NewTeeVee on the Newscorp/NBC YouTube [...]

By: umopapisdn

umopapisdn — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:44:46 +0000

The automobile industry (just one industry, albeit one of the higher spenders when it comes to advertising dollars) spends approximately $7 billion annually in advertising dollars. Less than 10% of this, however, is spent on Internet advertising. However, studies show that approximately one third of automobile sales involve the buyer initially researching by utilizing the Internet. In overall advertising dollars, across all industries, just short of 10% is being spend in online advertising, but this figure is growing. So, let’s put this into perspective. More and more each day, people are reading their news on the Internet rather than in print. More and more each day, people are watching TV shows and movies online rather than watching TV (although this is moving at a much slower rate and needs much more time to catch on, due to bandwidth and subsequent quality limitations, as well as less-than-seamless experiences versus currently expectations). Simply put, more and more people are spending more and more time on the Internet versus other traditional forms of media (print, radio, television). With this shift, more and more advertising dollars will be spent online, also being shifted from these other mediums. Furthermore, as more and more Internet-based services and products are being created, there will be more and more need to market these online. As this “less than 10%” spend grows into 10%, moves into 15%, and continues past 20%, etc… everyone is hoping to get a piece of that pie. In the meantime, however, it is Google who is getting the majority of that pie while, at the same time, nibbling a little bit more of that pie from its competitors each and every quarter. Sure, perhaps at this rate, Google could only double or triple in revenue before the advertising market becomes saturated. However, there is another revolution Google started that will continue to unfold. It’s a lot harder to charge money for something that you can get free elsewhere. Magazines are usually entirely free when you count the advertising dollars. The only real reason to continue to charge a subscription fee for a magazine is to ensure your advertisers that only well qualified eyes (those willing to pay for the magazine) are seeing the ads. If the magazine were free, the circulation numbers would be bloated and the advertisers would have little to go by regarding targeting their ads or knowing what the TRUE circulation readership is. Google changes this paradigm by turning advertising from a “circulation” or “impression” model into a pay-per-action model. Let me be clear that Google already utilizes a pay-per-action model… it just happens that the current “action” is an “ad click”. They are testing more qualified actions (such as signups, inquiries, purchases, etc…) Even an ad click, however, is more targeted than an ad impression. However, nobody talks about “ad impression fraud”… so, they’re focused on easing the concerns of click-fraud. In any case, even if a video download site appears on the Internet containing 15 times as many quality videos than You Tube, they will need something very important. Eyeballs. To get those eyeballs, they will need to advertise. To advertise, they will likely send a bunch of money toward Google’s bank account. When competitors are unable to compete with Google on a particular vertical, Google wins because they get more eyeballs. When competitors beat Google at a particular vertical, Google partially wins because they get more advertising dollars. Their advertising worthiness goes up the more eyeballs they attract. YouTube was an acquisition to gain eyeballs. However, in a sense, Google NEEDS someone ELSE to be #1 in a handful of the other verticals because if Google is the only company around, there will be nobody with money to spend on advertising (taking an extreme world example.) So, Google is merely sparking interest in various verticals to keep the activity going (on the web.) As soon as Google started scanning books, everyone else started doing the same thing, preparing to crush Google. As soon as Google (and YouTube) started putting videos online, everyone else started doing the same thing, preparing to crush Google/YouTube. What will Google start putting online next, to get everyone else to follow suit?

By: Runa

Runa — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:07:11 +0000

Very interesting article. I also had a similar opinion.

Anyway I'm not so sure that "in a future video, not text" will be "the fundamental element of the web".

You have to consider how much texts and videos do increase in the net at this time.

For the moment, just considering old-styled websites, blogs, the "google books" project and so on, I believe the amount of texts is increasing hugely more then videos.

By: Stephane Rodriguez

Stephane Rodriguez — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:55:59 +0000

Video will never replace text, it is just too good.

By: Jacomo

Jacomo — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:28:01 +0000

Murdoch is missing one big piece of the pie and that is Last Mile Broadband links. This is where Google will eventually rule this Content Distribution space. Their major new Data Centers and Nationwide Fiber distribution network will allow them to negotiate very favorable terms with Local Service Providers, who own the Last Mile, and therefore be sought after by any content owners. Especially if they plan to deliver any quality (Low Latency) Video. Murdoch will eventually realize that he will need to deploy his MySpace service on Google new distribution network if he wants to compete. It will be Content vs the Best Distribution and distribution will win, in that Murdoch will not be able to control all content. Wait until Google gets access to the new 700Mhz Wireless spectrum via a Partnership (with someone to deploy and operate the Wireless Network) by investing $ 3-5 Billion to help its team win the Nationwide Spectrum. They will then own all VoiceIP/Video and High Speed data distribution to the end user.

Jacomo

By: RandomThoughts

RandomThoughts — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:27:40 +0000

Umopapisdn, I didn’t say that Googe is failing in what they want to do, because they do search and online ads better than everyone out there. That being said, the advertising market is only so big, sure, more content draws more people to the web (eventually) making the pie bigger, but how big can the advertising model grow?

By: Steve Bryant

Steve Bryant — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:20:21 +0000

Video will not replace text. First: it's not a zero sum game (there will be both). Second: Video is not as efficient (either in production or consumption).
Google will get better at indexing video. Remember the Blogger acquisition in 2003. That acquisition helped GOOG understand conversation networks and index those conversations better. Result: A HUGE percentage of search referrals to blogs come from Google. Same dynamic will apply with video.
Joost and Google don't play in the same sandbox. Joost is broadcast in a P2P model over the Web. It's not (apparently) a collection of user-generated content or a powerful search for all types of video content.
There will always be search. Search will always require text.