Lame

From Matt Richtel's story about YouTube's deal with Verizon:

YouTube’s phone-based version will require a $15-a-month subscription to a Verizon Wireless service called VCast.

and

And instead of choosing what to watch from a vast library of clips, VCast users will be limited to an unspecified number of videos selected and approved by the companies.

and

Verizon would have the exclusive rights to distribute YouTube videos on mobile phones “for a limited period of time.”

and

YouTube said its editors would select short videos from its library for the Verizon Wireless service. Verizon Wireless said it would vet the videos to make sure they met the company’s editorial and taste guidelines.

and

“We’ll select content that has the broadest appeal and the highest entertainment value,” Ms. Liang said.

This deal violates the entire ethos of YouTube, not free, not open, exclusive, no community, limited, censorship, etc, etc.

Why tarnish the YouTube brand with a deal like this? 

I know that you can't put the entire YouTube service on a mobile phone (yet, flash lite enabled mobile browsers should fix that).

But this just is sooo lame.

Comments

[howard lindzon]

Maybe it was Microsoft that secretly bought YouTube?

[PRoales]

"not free, not open, exclusive, no community, limited, censorship"

Isant that how the carriers like to play?

Isant this what makes the iPhone rumors so good?

[AlFromChicago]

Fred --

Not to defend anyone -- but isn't this really probably driven by Verizon's concern on copyright violations? So this completely solves the problem on only allowing vetted videos to show and not putting Verizon in any kind of liability -- kind of really supports a lot of what Mark Cuban has been saying on YouTube which is how much is driven by videos that have been illegally uploaded.

This isn't commenting on the paid part -- just the part on who chooses what and why

[Erik Schwartz]

...and that in a nutshell is why we built our product to completely end run the carriers.

That and they take their substantial cut off the top.

BTW, iPhone doesn't solve any of this and it's why I'm dubious of its success. The carriers control and meter the data channel. You think all the carriers with their music store are goint to let you access apple's competing music store over their data channel?

[Alessandro]

Ciao,

not sure what do you mean by "yet, flash lite enabled mobile browsers should fix that".

Flash Lite does not support Flash Video. If YouTube expose mp4 or 3gp video file then it would work using Flash Lite 2 on the browser (currently there are no phones with this feature, the Nokia N95 will have it), otherwise no go.

Alessandro

[jackson]

"We’ll select content that has the broadest appeal and the highest entertainment value,”

This does not compute. the first cancels out the last.

[Tony Alva]

A big telco will always crush the best ideas.

[steve]

good bad or indifferent, this deal is not complicated to understand: verizon licensed the YouTube brand. pure and simple.

maybe YouTube finally found a business model?

[David Gray]

The true lameness of "anyone" thinking they can decide what is of value for someone else, let alone the scariness of anything that has broad appeal, makes the whole idea unworthy of comment. However, it does further support and explain why Verizon is known on the street as "the Nickle and Dime Company".

[Andy]

Very Un-Dude.

[steve]

I completely agree:

"In breaking the link between the videos it serves and the rest of the internet, Verizon misses the whole point of YouTube and kills the experience dead."

[Gerald Joseph]

Good Post,

Is this the end of free?

I consider Business Model Purity to be one of two essential laws of Startup scalability. A consistent business model is absolutely critical to market penetration and User loyalty.

It is probable that there are internal pressures from the parent company to monetize to compensate them for the ballooning price tag of the acquisition due to coerced licensing deals and litigation.

Startup Founders should closely monitor the developments of recent acquisitions. Startups may begin to question the build- to-flip/M&A route.

[dave]

mobile phones support 3gpp multimedia formats and not flv format - i doubt we'll see flv on mobile phones ever. there are techniques to download and transcode flv files or transcode on the fly and stream to mobile phones.

so, you CAN make the entire youtube catalogue available to mobile phones.

there are a few issues: the rights clearance issue and the mobile distribution puzzle issue.

rights issues: branded content that has been licensed to youtube by the owner may not include rights for mobile/wireless distribution. i doubt CBS has given rights to youtube for mobile.

distribution puzzle isssues: youtube's exclusive deal may have come at a premium, which is good for youtube. second, by striking an exclusive with vzw youtube signals that it's serious about mobile and if you want to distribute youtube's content you have to go to youtube, sit across the table from them and negotiate to get it.

lastly, mobile is NOT the internet. wake up folks. if you want "free" and "open" stick to the fixed line internet and stop whining about mobile being closed. mobile will open up slowly, along two major tracks. first, usability of apps(e.g. browsers)that allow users to surf where they want to and second improvements to network protocols. but it's gonna be 2009/10 before we get there and even then it's gonna be conditional.

[Allen]

"I know that you can't put the entire YouTube service on a mobile phone (yet, flash lite enabled mobile browsers should fix that)."

Actually... you can. Look here:
http://gigaom.com/2006/11/28/verizon-youtube-lite/

[dave]

Allen -- Actually, the services listed at the other gigaom article render a subset of Youtube content and not the "entire" service.

[Charlie Crystle]

First rule of compelling solutions:

suck less

[kip]

content is king and I think verizon is positioning itself to allow youtube to shake out many of the quirks . Let's put this in aholding pattern and take a look at where you tube is 6 months from now.

I think the vcast service is goig to be dead in the water unless I can get it on a larger screen that what we currently have otu there. I'd watch it on a treo/blackberry but that's about it and there seems to be cannibalization of products going on here as I'd rather have wireless access via treo than vcast dictating it.

[Jonathan Trumper]

YouTube Indy Content Creators: Sold Down the Cellular River?

While many contributors will enjoy their shining moments on VCast, others will feel sold out.

Has there been any indication Verizon or YouTube intend to COMPENSATE THE CREATORS for their material?

Media Companies (CBS, Comedy Central, et. al) may have revenue share agreements in place, but do the independent contributors?

Perhaps the folks at YouTube should follow Revver's example by sharing revenue.

If they don't want to set the sharing precedent across all of YouTube, perhaps they should BUY Revver, use it as a defined revshare-space and in the process providing themselves a back door to a less-conflicted ethos...

Some language from YouTube's 'terms of use'

"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels... The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website."

"These Terms of Service, and any rights and licenses granted hereunder, may not be transferred or assigned by you, but may be assigned by YouTube without restriction."

[Dustin]

I have a Verizon phone, and I have learned that they are into a "not free, not open, exclusive, no community, limited, censorship, etc, etc" kind of party. For example, they don't have Sim cards so they can charge you $15 to transfer all your data when you get a new plan. Blasted Verizon