Walt Mossberg says Podcasting is too hard. I agree. Videoblogging, strangely while double the amount of media being displayed, is about equally as hard to do well. I think the software is just more available for video, since people seem to do more video recording personally than audio recording.
Dan Gillmor writes about Current.TV’s submission terms. They basically want exclusive rights to the content submitted to them to be exclusive for 3 months. And, tops, they’re only paying $1k for the content. That’s not only bottom-rack pricing it’s also ridiculous to ask people to have their content tied up just by submitting it to Current.TV. I met Dan on the last day of Gnomedex as we were leaving, and he’s a great guy. If anyone’s going to lead us in the charge for new-media journalism, it’s definitely him, and I don’t think we could ask for anyone better to do it. Thanks for your hard work, Dan.
The real news behind Google’s video upload program is here. Appears they’re only going to offer snippets of the video you upload to return as search results, unless you want to enter into a pay-for-play agreement to host your video. This would mean your subscribers pay to watch your videos and Google takes their cut.
A good quote:
“The ultimate endgame is streaming video, otherwise Google can’t get video advertising dollars,” said one source. “They have to figure a way to get video into their world to capture those dollars.”
When are people going to get it through their skulls that streaming video is not it? Besides the poor experience generally offered by streaming video (due to a lack of QoS deployed on the Internet), people like to be able to take stuff off-line.
Another good line:
Unlike Yahoo, which already has submission deals with companies such as Reuters, Google will avoid mining the Internet for video clips and will use only video clips that have been submitted by their producers.
What kind of strategy is this for a search company? They’re not going to mine the Internet? Isn’t that their business? I’m not all that interested in uploading my video to Google when it’s already being made freely available from my website. This leads into yet another quote which totally blew me away:
Eventually, Google plans to leapfrog its competitors by creating a “walled garden” of video content hosted on its servers. The content will originate both from independent and A-list video producers, sources say. That way, Google can eventually sell access and video advertising, or online commercials.
Google plans to leapfrog its competitors by becoming a video portal? Is that what they’re saying? So the company that destroyed the portal plans to beat its competitors by becoming what its competitors used to be? I’m thoroughly confused. I’m becoming more and more convinced that Google had a couple of hits and the best is not yet to come. Seriously, they’ve destroyed Blogger, the new Google Groups is way more confusing than the original, Google New still offers no syndication making it almost useless, and their Fusion project is a joke.
Jeremy Zawodny has some good comments as well.