Does No One Remember That Google Tried And Failed To 'Rent' Videos Online In The Past?
from the short-memory-syndrome dept
The tech press is excitedly discussing the fact that YouTube is looking to work with movie studios to allow movie rentals, with many talking up how this is a way for Google to put in place a new business model for YouTube. But here's the thing: everyone seems to forget that, back when Google first launched Google Video (which was a competitor to YouTube before Google bought YouTube and merged the two), it was based on this very idea. You could "buy" videos on the site to watch. And what happened? It failed pretty miserably. People just weren't interested. Instead, they flocked to YouTube to get all that free content and community, and Google quietly changed around Google Videos' entire business model and concept, and then eventually realized that it couldn't compete, and so it bought YouTube.So why would people suddenly be willing to pay when something that sounds nearly identical a few years ago failed to get much interest at all? Perhaps culture or technology has changed (it's easier to watch downloaded movies on a TV screen, certainly). But, I have to admit to being rather skeptical of this as a big business opportunity. We've already seen this movie, and it didn't end well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content, movies, rent, videos, youtube
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What people forget is that in the late 60's the film industry was dead on its feet - allegedly killed by TV. The big films of the day were things like easy rider, midnight cowboy - cult films really and certainly not mass market family entertainment.
The industry was rescued by a number of things - the re-invention of the blockbuster with high production values - shown mainly in the largest cinemas (small local screens were closing down anyway) - the acceptance that you could let recent films be shown on TV (during my childhood in the 60s - and even into the early 70s in the UK you never saw a film under 20 years old on TV and Disney only allowed "taster" programs of its cartoon to be shown - and then only at the school holidays) and yes the VCR also played a part.
Of course the movie industry thought it was the blockbusters that did it and carried on with the essence of the old mentality intact.
To my mind the blockbusters are now looking rather tired - maybe that strand has become played out. Perhaps the hollywood film industry should fold - for artistic reasons not just tech/finance ones. Things have a natural lifespan. No one much builds Great Cathedrals anymore - mostly we have enough already. No -one writes classical symphonies these days - the canon is regarded as complete - most new work would tend to look derivative.
Why should I bother to use my computer to rent movies - there are plenty of ways to get them already and frankly I've had enough of them by and large.
Why should new media just be seen as a way to sell an old product. New wine for new wineskins!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My defense to your rediculous statement is:
District 9
Avatar
Iron Man 2
If you want them to stop making films because Star Wars has already been made then thats fine for you, but a lot of people are very excited about modern cinema!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point when an artform reaches its "sell by date" is often accompanied by some really good examples (eg King's College Chapel, Elgar's Cello concerto) and it can be difficult for those immersed in the time to tell what is going on.
Also I'm not familiar with the films that you mention - which probably means that their audience is, at least to some extent, specialised. Therefore they probably don't fit quite into the "blockbuster" category that I was talking about. I'm sure that in the late 60's there would have been a version of you who would have railed against the idea (then prevalent) that cinema was on its way out and would have produced a list of films to prove it.
In the same way as there were still buildings being built (even churches) after 1550 and music being written (even "classical" music ) after the first world war I'm sure that there will still be films being made - its just that they won't be constructed on the old pattern. So they might not be so grand, so well funded and such a pivotal part of culture as they were in the past.
The real point is that the new technology can do so much more than just provide a long sstream of audio visuals for passive consumption - so why limit it to that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Granted, District 9 is more of a cult film given it's virgin director and small global release, but avatar has been James Camerons $200million baby for the last 4 years. It's spanking new 3D visuals and relentless special effects more than suit the blockbuster catagory.
Iron Man 2 is due for release next year so marketing is currently very small, but it's guaranteed popcorn fodder.
Smaller, lower budget films are often far better, I agree - however, the general public doesn't, as it's these mindless, money fuelled monsters that make the most money.
Point in case: Titanic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would have said that more readily available, affordable methods of streaming media would be a good thing? OK, it's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
It didn't work in the past, when the average internet speed didn't really allow for streaming of 2 hours worth of high quality video and audio, but more people are getting fatter bandwidth and more people are hooking media pc's to their tv's.
Youtube never had the capability of offering this service before and google video didn't have the popularity. I think there's a good bet that this could work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:
I'm going to cry. 145 x 145k actual, but at least I'm paying the same as those with faster service.
*tear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
standard corporate mindset
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait for it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If at first you don't succeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure to fail...
YouTube is making the classic mistake of trying to branch into something that they aren't the leader in (nor is the parent) before they even figure out their current business model. That will dilute the brand and open the door a little wider for competitors in the amateur video segment.
I continue to shake my head at Google's "let's throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks" approach to strategy. Speaking of amateur...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It gets the movies there
To me, the big thing is that this is a deal that gets google and the movie companies working together, in a complimentary fashion. If I were google, I'd be willing to take a decent loss on this, just to set the tone for future negotiations, just to show that I'm willing to try it the movie industry's way.
After this doesn't make money (at least for certain movies), then google can suggest *crazy* ideas like taking a movie that no one has bought in the last 3 months and putting it on YouTube for free. Maybe, just maybe, it would drive traffic to your other movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The pricing is outrageous
YouTube is talking about how to get "out of the office and into the living room," but at $4.00 per movie, they have already doomed themselves. Sure, they could incorporate YouTube into set-top devices, but why would a consumer bother? Their pricing is so high and their quality so mediocre that there is no incentive for the consumer to jump through hoops to make it work. There are already better, more convenient, more consumer-friendly services at a better price (hulu, Netflix streaming, cable PPV). Google's "innovation" has been very disappointing of late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The pricing is outrageous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The pricing is outrageous
If I sound angry, it's because I hoped at first that YouTube might actually bring a unique offering to the table, something like Netflix streaming without the DVD plan -- a flat-rate subscription with unlimited viewing for an affordable price. Instead, they've brought another CinemaNow, but with worse quality. Great job, YouTube, you're only six years behind the curve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The pricing is outrageous
Don't think of it as upcharging for hi-def. Think of it as your hi-def regular product coming down the pipe at half the competitor's rate and then offering to half it again to let some college kids who don't mind a grainy picture to still afford beer and pizza.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The pricing is outrageous
Pretty much this. If you watch one of the hands full of official free offerings of professional content on youtube (anime for example; shows like Ghost in the Shell SAC have been uploaded by the rights holders), their HD streams of those things are really good. Because there's actual HD video in those HD video streams. Professional youtubers like some of the GameStation guys and girls also put up actual high def video as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Community
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Community
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Community
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not only are their "HD" or "HQ" videos absolute jokes in terms of quality, but their videos constantly cut out and have to re-buffer due to their bandwidth issues.
If I can't watch a 40 second youtube clip with out being annoyed, I seriously doubt I would ever make it through a 2 hour movie from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube to the Media Center
Reasons:
- better execution
- better market timing
- technological progress
- market shifts
The three skills a VC needs to have to pick a winner are: timing, timing, timing. This is no different, maybe the timing is just better now.
For example, at CES this year, I saw a heckuvallot of TVs with YouTube access built right in. A lot of set-top boxes, too. My Tivo has YouTube built into the OSD. Isn't that enough to create a very different market scenario than what Google Video tried years ago?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]