Youtube redesign?

I apologize if this has been posted. I did a search and came up with nothing.

So I was on youtube looking for a clip to post in a thread and I came across this.

I did a search and came up with this. Note the last line:

During Google's earning conference call Thursday, CEO Eric Schmidt suggested YouTube may eventually charge fees to supplement ad revenue.

The guy in the video is obviously trying halfheartedly to defend youtube, and is using the other half to pull a shameless plug.

As for the link, I'm not a regular youtube user, so I don't really care either way. What do youtube users here think? I can see them wanting to make money, but there has to be another way that doesn't involve charging users. As I understand it, the youtube community is huge. Surely with that many people they could come up with a way to make money for the site. It does not seem right to drastically change something that so many have been so loyal to for so long without consulting the very people that made the site as popular as it is.

Anyway, to my main point. The first thing I though of was the string of threads I've seen in the past months of people saying various "truth seeker" (or whatever they want to be called) accounts being deleted. I'm pretty sure most everyone here is aware that most companies are owned and operated by a handful of corporations.

Anyone else think they did away with the people that would in some way offend or expose projects or partner companies of the sponsors? Was it a calculated move in preparation for the new sponsored redesign?



[edit on 4/17/09 by Magnivea]

Wow, that guy is funny.

Regarding topic.

I think, in a word, it's called "progress."

Change is the only constant. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Change happens. etc....

YouTube is becoming a victim or survivor of its own success. (Depending on how you view it.) (Unintended pun, sorry.) There could be parallels to ATS as well as we recently witnessed with new features / enhancements.

Some people have used YouTube as nothing more than a "media host site" for free.

(I can only imagine the millions of dollars in infrastructure required to maintain.)

Thanks for a great topic.

Regards...KK



[edit on 17-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

If they do charge fees, people are just going to go somewhere else. There are loads of other free video hosting sites out there, to name three "bigger" ones:

Vimeo, Viddler, Veoh.

I just use YouTube for watching random videos. These fees might only apply to the ones hosting videos, if it ever comes to that. I reckon it would cost a lot to maintain it though.




[edit on 17/4/09 by dmorgan]

This relates to my earlier post:

Do You Think Bandwidth Grows on Trees?

User-generated content may have changed the Internet, but sites like YouTube are suffocating under the costs of storing it.

Google will lose $470 million on the video-sharing site this year alone.

Source: www.slate.com...

Regards...KK

[edit on 20-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

I think that other people will just go to other free video sites. There are so many of them. I really don't see YouTube doing that.

Originally posted by beautyfrompain
I think that other people will just go to other free video sites. There are so many of them. I really don't see YouTube doing that.

I am afraid that most "free" sites are simply growing their member ranks.
Then perhaps they'll be sold or switch to revenue based.

Twitter is another prime example. They will have to develop a revenue stream, subscriber base or somehow "monetize" their structure.

It costs millions of dollars to build, secure, operate and maintain any site of that magnitide. Think of it as a free trial offer. Or you'll be watching an ad before each clip. NOTHING is free my friend.

Sorry, that's capitalism in a free market society.

Regards...KK


[edit on 20-4-2009 by kinda kurious]