Comments on: What Will YouTube Be Like On Your Mobile Phone?

By: MobileCrunch » YouTube Geting a Mobile Mini-Me

MobileCrunch » YouTube Geting a Mobile Mini-Me — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:30:31 +0000

[...] YouTubers will be treated to a mini version later this year at the conclusion of their exclusivity deal with Verizon wireless. The service will be live for our friends across the pond in [...]

By: Google Somewhat Froogle At Holiday Press Party

Google Somewhat Froogle At Holiday Press Party — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:04:44 +0000

[...] “So why the Verizon deal?” I asked Hurley. [...]

By: Google Somewhat Froogle At Holiday Press Party » JenIT

Google Somewhat Froogle At Holiday Press Party » JenIT — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:44:13 +0000

[...] “So why the Verizon deal?” I asked Hurley. [...]

By: Yohay Elam

Yohay Elam — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:37:00 +0000

Check out the hammer that Youtube put on Tinytube for showing videos on their mobile portal:

http://gigaom.c...12/06/tinytube/

By: Google Somewhat Froogle At Holiday Press Party at Swiss Podcast Directory and Blog

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 07:54:33 +0000

[...] “So why the Verizon deal?” I asked Hurley. [...]

By: Techcrunch » Blog Archive » Google Somewhat Frugal At Holiday Press Party

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 07:36:05 +0000

[...] “So why the Verizon deal?” I asked Hurley. [...]

By: UK VPS Hosting

UK VPS Hosting — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:54:22 +0000

I’m not surprised becuase Microsoft’s Soapbox is already doing this.

http://soapboxt...spaces.live.com

By: Shoob » Blog Archive » links for 2006-11-29

Shoob » Blog Archive » links for 2006-11-29 — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:23:48 +0000

[...] What Will YouTube Be Like On Your Mobile Phone? Pour 15$ par mois les abonnés Verizon pourront recevoir et envoyer des fichiers vidéos sur YouTube. [...]

By: Squasher98

Squasher98 — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:30:24 +0000

I believe you are referring to monetizing the videos themselves – this is an unnecessary step. What is important is the “indirect monetization.” You can bet that Verizon paid a decent chunk of money to get the YouTube partnership and it would be easy to see why people would pay Verizon for YouTube capabilities (subscriptions)… Verizon could also force users to watch paid advertisements, say 1 for every 3 regular videos sent. I think this was a brilliant move by Verizon. My blog entry on this is here: http://intellig...com/blog/?p=107

By: Harry

Harry — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:37:39 +0000

Remember YouTube’s headache: how to bring revenue in.
On the web they cannot go back and introduce a charge. On a new platform though they play differently. As I ‘ve said many time there is little about openness and fairness in YouTube business. It’s like a Hollywood studio that does not pay its producers and artists (or at least that’s what it wants to become)

By: Pramit Singh

Pramit Singh — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:38:25 +0000

The Walled Garden Idea is no in.

By: Robert Oberhofer

Robert Oberhofer — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:21:28 +0000

>> “What does “select” video mean?”

There are most likely two reasons for ’select’

Once is simply (as John commented) screening. Carriers are very careful about the type of content available on their network. This is nothing new, and they take every and any step to make sure that they do not get unwanted support/complaint calls (very expensive) or even worse bad publicity. Even if this means that their services as bland. Verizon and T-Mobile are good examples of paranoid carriers.

The other one is simply practicality and cost.
Making ALL YouTube content available is a big undertaking. Especially as for mobile phones it will be necessary to transcode the content into the right format for the different phones. Typically you need at the moment 3-4 different profiles (screen resolution, bandwidth, codecs). Transcoding everything beforehand is costly (and most content will never been seen via mobile) and doing it on-the-fly is even crazier (currently a dual CPU box can do two on-the-fly transcodings at the same time).
Therefore I suspect that it will be featured, top viewed, most discussed etc content that will be available.

Having dealt with mobile video now for a while that is what I would have done and I suspect that Verizon and YouTube are going through the same thoughts.

By: David Mackey

David Mackey — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:50:12 +0000

Sounds like a neat idea, though I don’t think mobile phones are going to become our technological center as many people think. Simply because who wants to utilize a screen this small? This has been demonstrated in a similar technology, Video iPods.

By: Adam Zbar

Adam Zbar — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:03:00 +0000

There are a number of issues with the Youtube/Verizon deal:

1. Content is not free – behind VCast walled garden.
2. Content is programmed – Verizon, not users, determine what users view.
3. Content cannot be shared – no P2P mobile video sharing.

Youtube missed an opportunity here — to develop a mobile service that offers the same excitement which it delivers online — namely, the ability for users, not programmers, to upload and share their content with anyone with a mobile phone.

By: People Finder

People Finder — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:18:00 +0000

Q: What Will YouTube Be Like On Your Mobile Phone?

A: Much smaller.

By: Michael Hoffman

Michael Hoffman — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:39:22 +0000

Call me a skeptic. I just don’t see this as ready for prime time. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. The focus of the wireless carriers should be GPS, maps, location-based ads (come in to the store you are right next to and get 50% of a pizza…) I am on the road right now and even on a fast WiFi connection it is a huge pain to look at a web-page from my T-Mobile MDA. Watch video on it? Why? This is the kind of deal designed to make shareholders feel better and teenagers buy phones.

By: BlogReader

BlogReader — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:56:47 +0000

Nate: I see the reason they didn’t go that route as a cell phone’s keyboard input sucks. Could you imagine typing “colbert” in a tiny box using predictive text? Maybe the kids can do that but that’s near a ring of hell for me. It is annoying enough to correct the 7100 series blackberry with only 2 characters per key.

I’m surprised that Verizon didn’t come out with a “push content to your phone” model where you find a view on YouTube when surfing on a normal computer and then send a link to your cell phone. Cuz you know you’re already watching it on a 17″+ screen, wouldn’t you want to see it in on 1.5″ one?

Next up from the brain trust: voice activated YouTube. Because you want everyone on the bus to know that you’re searching for 20 year old girls covered in whipped cream. Delete delete delete

By: Nate Green

Nate Green — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:49:05 +0000

Very disappointing. YouTube is a web site. What they should have done, if it was technically possible, was to create a mobile Java client for their site, much like Google has done with many of their services (Gmail, Google Maps, etc.). Instead, they are buying into the silo cell service business, which is the opposite of everything YouTube and Web 2.0 are built upon.

By: LIVEdigitally by Jeremy Toeman » Blog Archive » YouTube on VCast is the wrong approach for Mobile

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:35:06 +0000

[...] The talk of the town today (recommended reading: IP Democracy, PhoneScoop, TechCrunch) is the announcement that Verizon and YouTube are doing a deal. Quick summary: you have to be a VCast subscriber and from the NY Times: 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. [...]

By: Heather

Heather — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:21:39 +0000

No matter how hard I try I just can’t imagine watching videos on my cellphone, particularly with a fee attached. The screen’s just too small to really enjoy the experience. I certainly can’t imagine wanting to do it often enough to subscribe to a service.

By: BlogReader

BlogReader — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:11:00 +0000

Isn’t part of the appeal of YouTube that you can search around and find other videos you like? Its like Verizon threw out one of the good things about YouTube and replaced it with a top-down state run TV station. What brainiac thought this one up?

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:42:35 +0000

I will admit that I’m a huge Internet video junky, but I don’t get watching video on my cellphone. I can see how it might be interesting for a few minutes but it seems the novelty would wear off fast. Toss that $15 a month charge and I don’t see it being a blast.
I don’t see it.

By: De Gardener

De Gardener — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:59:34 +0000

[...] A lot of expected hoopla all over the web today. Techrcunch, Om Malik and Pete Cashmore all report an earlier than expected “Lite” (in other words, censored) launch of YouTube on Verizon’s vCast (vTube?). The service could launch as early as next week (!). [...]

By: Patricia

Patricia — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:45:56 +0000

Interesting. I have to admit there is no video I want to see bad enough or with enough urgency to merit its delivery to my cell phone but I think there’s a novelty to it that carriers can play with among a younger than me audience

I have to be honest, this kinda smells like “anytime, anywhere productivity” that was pushed hard in 1998 which played out very differently than what everybody expected (at the cost of a few of my clients at that time folding).

I think we’re a ways away from really knowing what consumers want in terms of mobile content to their phones, particularly video.

By: Peter Cranstone

Peter Cranstone — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:36:53 +0000

$180 to watch videos (yearly fee)… vs. Desktop version which is free. The “differentiator” will be the “select” video’s. If you take the average price of a rental video at the store as $3 you can rent 60 movies. More than 1 per week.

Select had better be pretty darn special to warrant $180 a year.