Vessel - The New Early Access Paid Youtube Subscription
-
@Dashrender said:
Aren't those snippets called, wait for it.. the sports, etc news?
Yep... So they are trying to act more like a broadcast TV station where they have different segments, entertainment, news, movies, etc...
-
@Dashrender said:
Tech News 2Night talked about this yesterday. The host asked the guest story writer why would people want this since almost anything on Youtube can often be found in many other locations around the web.
The guest author said that Vessel content providers will provide content in Vessel days or weeks before other free sites (stated above), and new content that amounts to daily news style snips of events that millennials would rather watch than the whole event. The example given was a hockey game. Instead of having to watch a whole hockey game, it will be edited down to the 2-3 good goals, or maybe a 'great' save and a score.
Really? Millennials don't want to watch the game anymore... just give you the highlights?
AJ is that true? LOL Sorry bro, had to pick.
Not at all. I love watching a sports game, like basketball, football, or baseball from start to finish. I'm usually multi-tasking while I'm doing it, but I watch it start to finish.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
So the MangoLassi Venture Capital arm has given is a unaminous thumbs down. I now expect Google to buy it for $10bn in 12 months time
Why would Google buy something from Youtube when it owns Youtube?
Well, look at it this way, Google bought youtube 10(+?) years ago and it still hasn't turned a profit
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967 -
@nadnerB said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
So the MangoLassi Venture Capital arm has given is a unaminous thumbs down. I now expect Google to buy it for $10bn in 12 months time
Why would Google buy something from Youtube when it owns Youtube?
Well, look at it this way, Google bought youtube 10(+?) years ago and it still hasn't turned a profit
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967That has to be changing now though... now that they have content that people subscribe to, etc.. with the pay the content creators model they have now...
-
Blimey. I assumed Youtube was profitable. I will probably sign-up for an ad-free Youtube subscription when/if they finally make it available. My son's viewing is probably 60% Youtube, 20% Netflix, 20% terrestrial.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
Aren't those snippets called, wait for it.. the sports, etc news?
Yep... So they are trying to act more like a broadcast TV station where they have different segments, entertainment, news, movies, etc...
I just don't see people paying for this... but then again we pay for water in the c-stores now... so what do I know?
-
c-stores?
-
@nadnerB said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
So the MangoLassi Venture Capital arm has given is a unaminous thumbs down. I now expect Google to buy it for $10bn in 12 months time
Why would Google buy something from Youtube when it owns Youtube?
Well, look at it this way, Google bought youtube 10(+?) years ago and it still hasn't turned a profit
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967With the amount of ads that it shows, how can it not be profitable?
I don't trust anything from WSJ. That's not a reputable paper to people in the know. I know people who work there and they can't give subscriptions away internally. It's nothing but a worthless ad platform. Articles are all BS in there.
-
@nadnerB said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
So the MangoLassi Venture Capital arm has given is a unaminous thumbs down. I now expect Google to buy it for $10bn in 12 months time
Why would Google buy something from Youtube when it owns Youtube?
Well, look at it this way, Google bought youtube 10(+?) years ago and it still hasn't turned a profit
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967Every article that talks about this is using the WSJ as its source. I haven't seen anything to corroborate it. From a few articles it looks like Youtube became profitable to Google in late 2010.... although there doesn't appear to be any official numbers released.
-
-
@coliver said:
@nadnerB said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
So the MangoLassi Venture Capital arm has given is a unaminous thumbs down. I now expect Google to buy it for $10bn in 12 months time
Why would Google buy something from Youtube when it owns Youtube?
Well, look at it this way, Google bought youtube 10(+?) years ago and it still hasn't turned a profit
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967Every article that talks about this is using the WSJ as its source. I haven't seen anything to corroborate it. From a few articles it looks like Youtube became profitable to Google in late 2010.... although there doesn't appear to be any official numbers released.
I remember hearing that Youtube wasn't profitable 5+ years ago... Considering Scott's words.. I'm guessing Google just never bothered to announce anything officially different, so that old story just gets recirculated.
-
-
@coliver said:
Every article that talks about this is using the WSJ as its source. I haven't seen anything to corroborate it. From a few articles it looks like Youtube became profitable to Google in late 2010.... although there doesn't appear to be any official numbers released.
LOL. WSJ everytime I've read it is just ridiculous. Stating things that are so commonly known to be wrong (like announcing new technologies that people have been using for years as if they were just invented) and assuming that their audience are complete morons. It's possible that this info is true, but if the WSJ states it, there is no more reason to believe it to be true than if we'd never heard of it.
-
@Dashrender said:
I remember hearing that Youtube wasn't profitable 5+ years ago... Considering Scott's words.. I'm guessing Google just never bothered to announce anything officially different, so that old story just gets recirculated.
YouTube is part of a bigger value strategy. There is a wide variety of ways to define it as "profitable." And Google is unlikely to tell anyone when a division is or isn't profitable. But considering their model, it's hard to believe that it isn't very profitable.
-
VideoInk reported it as profitable back in 2013.
http://www.thevideoink.com/news/youtube-profitable-2013-revenue-falls-short-estimates-report/
-
I don't get it and I would pay for it. But, TV Stations are soon planning to do the same thing.
The New contracts we got made mention of it as well as the fact that instead of getting paid normal flat rate contracts where we get paid a flat amount 50% up front, 50% when deliverables are handed over is changing. They plan on using this "early access" to gauge audiences and see how they like content. depending on how well the show/episode contractors work is in does in the early testing would be how they pay you. The more view and higher ratings the more you get paid (to a limit) but you could also be paid nothing. This is very risky for people like us who have no involvement in the actual outcome of shows. We could potentially spend a lot of money and see none of it back. It also will not make people "produce better content" as the distributors is hoping, it will just make them loose money to produce any content. This is why we are considering stopping at the end of our current contracts and liquidating our gear. It's just not worth the risk for us and we've been at this since we were in Highschool (though we interned at another company then).
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I don't get it and I would pay for it. But, TV Stations are soon planning to do the same thing.
The New contracts we got made mention of it as well as the fact that instead of getting paid normal flat rate contracts where we get paid a flat amount 50% up front, 50% when deliverables are handed over is changing. They plan on using this "early access" to gauge audiences and see how they like content. depending on how well the show/episode contractors work is in does in the early testing would be how they pay you. The more view and higher ratings the more you get paid (to a limit) but you could also be paid nothing. This is very risky for people like us who have no involvement in the actual outcome of shows. We could potentially spend a lot of money and see none of it back. It also will not make people "produce better content" as the distributors is hoping, it will just make them loose money to produce any content. This is why we are considering stopping at the end of our current contracts and liquidating our gear. It's just not worth the risk for us and we've been at this since we were in Highschool (though we interned at another company then).
^ That makes me mad. That means that less people will be making the content of those sites but they will be making more content to fill demand. In he end we will have more stuff but less quality stuff by several orders of magnitude.
Ā
Where's my bucket of slap?! :rage1: -
@nadnerB said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I don't get it and I would pay for it. But, TV Stations are soon planning to do the same thing.
The New contracts we got made mention of it as well as the fact that instead of getting paid normal flat rate contracts where we get paid a flat amount 50% up front, 50% when deliverables are handed over is changing. They plan on using this "early access" to gauge audiences and see how they like content. depending on how well the show/episode contractors work is in does in the early testing would be how they pay you. The more view and higher ratings the more you get paid (to a limit) but you could also be paid nothing. This is very risky for people like us who have no involvement in the actual outcome of shows. We could potentially spend a lot of money and see none of it back. It also will not make people "produce better content" as the distributors is hoping, it will just make them loose money to produce any content. This is why we are considering stopping at the end of our current contracts and liquidating our gear. It's just not worth the risk for us and we've been at this since we were in Highschool (though we interned at another company then).
^ That makes me mad. That means that less people will be making the content of those sites but they will be making more content to fill demand. In he end we will have more stuff but less quality stuff by several orders of magnitude.
Ā
Where's my bucket of slap?! :rage1:I think content creators will move to other mediums to produce for. While Youtube carries the same risk it has been shown that if your content is good people will watch it and you will get ad-revenue for it. This encourages people to make good content. You can also time your own episodes and release more of them per "season". There are also other video sites that are experimenting with different revenue streams for content creators.
