YOUtube, MEtube

Hands down, one of the biggest buzzmakers of 2006 in the internet/web scene was the rise in popularity, and subsequent MEGABUCK acquisition, of YOUtube. It’s that site with all those videos one can view. But, as shown by the TIME magazine article, it’s much more than that. About $1.65 billion more.

That’s how much it took Google to acquire YOUtube. Why so much? One word: advertising. With so many people viewing the site (termed as “hits”), marketers speculate, products advertised in YOUtube would be very popular, or at least very familiar, with potential buyers. Ultimately, advertising in YOUtube is said to lead to more sales. The TIME magazine article even went as far as stating that there is hard evidence that YOUtube has already done this (at least with the CBS shows). Given that the potential for advertising earnings would run into several billions, some say that Google actually got a bargain in the YOUtube deal. But of course, others also say that’s rather being too optimistic. Right now, I’m with the others.

In the first place, despite all the hype about “web 2.0” and the supposed stepping up of amateur videobloggers to fill up the gaps and voids that the professional entertainment industry has neglected, YOUtube, for me and a good number of people, is a place where I can find TV shows and films unavailable in the local market, whether that be by free TV, cable or optical media. The videos of some funny guy, cute gal or gothic underground rock band? Those are just icing on the cake. But the videos done by the pros are still the cake. At $1.65 billion, I think that’s some pretty expensive icing.

The typical scenario is that a bored dude logs onto YOUtube, stumbles upon a quirky video, wonders and hopes that his friends haven’t seen it first, then mass refers it to all of his friends (with whom he’s playing an “I saw it first, I’m cool!” game). The truth is those dudes never really think of “YOU”, it’s actually “ME”. More so with those videobloggers. Thus YOUtube should have been MEtube. In any case, after the referrals, that video is forgotten. The dude then goes to watch episodes of his favorite soap or series, which in all likelihood was uploaded by someone other than the show’s copyrights holder. There comes the problem. Hello, “Napster”?

True, YOUtube has so far avoided the hassles of litigation and that Google has supposedly set up a legal defense fund in the hundreds of millions. A good number of articles and write-ups also paint a very rosy picture for YOUtube. But I think that’s part of the problem, the picture’s just too rosy. Kind of reminds me of the SEGWAY marketing propaganda. I bet Google also set up a marketing fund in the hundreds of millions.

I suppose the entertainment industry is still negotiating with Google to find a win-win situation. Until then, everyone in the know is just wait-wait.

Of Gadgets and Goons

Candy’s unfortunate incident (she got robbed, see her December 13, 2006 post) reminded me of my own unfortunate incident involving gadgets. Two years ago the place I was staying in got broken into and the scoundrels took off with my handycam – they didn’t even bother closing the door after them! Rascals! I hope they burn in hell!

(obviously I’m not as forgiving as Candy)

What really ticked me off was the fact that my handycam contained videos I took for a project for which I was really excited about (thankfully, since I’m such a good boy I didn’t have to worry about the scoundrels getting away with uh, more “risqué” videos of mine). I didn’t just lose hardware, I also lost my information, my intellectual property. As can be imagined, that really killed my enthusiasm. I only got enthusiastic about killing those goons.

Right after disgruntled ex-lovers, I suppose theft of cellphones and handycams (of rather exhibitionist individuals) leads to all those “scandals” that populate the net and which your friendly local pirate purveys. Must be horrific to be victimized in that way. Not only did they lose their hardware, they also lost information, and, uh, intellectual property.

I guess such unfortunate incidents show that all these “glittery” gadgets, which are supposed to make our lives better, attract a lot of goons, which of course makes our lives much worse. I’m speculating, but maybe whoever entered Candy’s dorm already knew she had an iPod beforehand. My place got broken into a few days after I got a 30 inch TV, and I guess that caught some rascal’s attention. I really wish they’d burn in hell!

Grrrrrr!!!

Anyways, I guess I’m still lucky because nobody got hurt when the robbery took place (I was out and my mom was supposed to visit me at around the time the robbery took place, good thing, I would say, that her visit didn’t push through). I mean, some people get knifed for their shiny cellphones, PDAs and of course iPods. That’s why some people think it’s a good idea to ditch the trademark classy white earphones which iPods come with. I think I’d change mine pretty soon – though primarily because the OEM replacements are rather overpriced.

True, it looks the part and sounds decent enough, but it tells all and sundry that you’ve got a shiny, expensive gadget on you, and that makes you a target. Some years ago a kid in the States got killed because he wouldn’t hand over his iPod (which was betrayed by the white earphones) – Steve Jobs e-mailed the kid’s mom telling her he’d be there for whatever she’d wanted. Too bad Stevie, with all his billions, couldn’t give her what she wanted most – her kid back.

Technology

Gadgets

Goons

All of it could be quite stressful.

FUZZYLOGICAL

December 4, 2006

"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident.
That’s where we come in; we’re computer professionals. We cause accidents."

--Nathaniel Borenstein

“The New Frontier”

Computerization and advancements in technology have brought about a dramatic shift in the way people live. With the advent of the internet, the gap between cultures has greatly narrowed down. People from opposite continents could exchange information in a split second. What took days before can now be done in a click of a button. Access to information has never been easier.

The practicality of using the internet cannot be contested. Going on-line creates opportunities unavailable to those not connected to the net. There is an increasing trend for companies in putting up web pages and providing their products and services on-line. The internet is the new frontier. Businesses, both large and small, are racing to exploit the possibilities that the net could bring.

With the increasing number of transactions conducted on-line, the need to police and regulate the internet seems to emerge. Various unscrupulous individuals have used the internet as their medium for committing their dastardly deeds. The range and variety of internet crimes is astounding. From child pornography, to cyber theft, to propagation of “virus strains”, to pilferage of ATM accounts… The list is endless. Just as the possibilities for individual and company growth are boundless, so are the possibilities for propagation of cyber crime limitless.

There is an increasing need for legislating laws penalizing cyber crimes. To date, not all cyber crimes are punishable due to lack of implementing laws. Legislating cyber laws and their subsequent enforcement should be given priority due to the increasing role of the internet in our society. The duty of policing the internet should not be left to a single country alone but should be a concerted effort by all States considering the importance of the internet to today’s global economy.