http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6305957.stm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wow, i have a few vids on there. Hopfully ill get some of that

Yea, that's be pretty awesome, but I have a feeling you may get a couple bucks for 10 pupular clips...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonetheless awesome ;)

Yes that would only really be for the clips that are high ranked aka getting "hits" which earns youtube money

It's most likely going to be like for every thousand views you get a penny. It's not going to be like every view is a dollar. Maybe someone should make an account for TIF and everyone has to watch the vid once a day. That would make some serious cash.

including short clips shown ahead of the actual film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's gonna suck :uhh:

 

including short clips shown ahead of the actual film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's gonna suck :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, TSN already does that with their online highlights. You've gotta watch a 30 second commercial before every one.

 

including short clips shown ahead of the actual film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's gonna suck :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DANG...that does suck

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish they would just leave it alone

IF only youtube wasnt bought out and turned into a money-generator :roll:. The original creators didnt care about money; thats why youtube flourished in the beginning.

including short clips shown ahead of the actual film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bye bye popularity.

IF only youtube wasnt bought out and turned into a money-generator :roll:. The original creators didnt care about money; thats why youtube flourished in the beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$1.65 billion says otherwise.

Yeah, TSN already does that with their online highlights. You've gotta watch a 30 second commercial before every one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I get that when watching clips from CNN or Reuters and stuff. But what bothers me is that I remember reading something before where they (the founders) don't want that kind of adverts in YouTube. I think it was in the Time article, but something like that.

The article says they'll be short, like 3 seconds.. but we'll see what happens

 

 

 

the problem I have is that it stops you from buffering the video if you have to buffer the ad first, and 3 seconds can end up being a minute of time wasted if your internet is running especially slow ><

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IF only youtube wasnt bought out and turned into a money-generator :roll:. The original creators didnt care about money; thats why youtube flourished in the beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$1.65 billion says otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe they didn't care about the money, but when someone puts 1.65 billion dollars in from of your face you'd have to be stupid to not take it.

Ofcourse id take the 1.65 bill, are you kidding me? :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im just saying, at the begining they creators of youtube didnt sit down and say "hmm lets make a big site and sell it for 1.65b!". They did it for fun, and they let everything be free and no poppups etc. Thats why it grew so fast.

Metacafe already does that. Metacafe is better.

Metacafe already does that. Metacafe is better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet which has everyone heard of? Which has more users? What does this say about the proposed model of business?

IF only youtube wasnt bought out and turned into a money-generator :roll:. The original creators didnt care about money; thats why youtube flourished in the beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But now that their rolling in it do they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would :P

 

Metacafe already does that. Metacafe is better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet which has everyone heard of? Which has more users? What does this say about the proposed model of business?

 

 

 

The KKK has more "users" than Linkin Park. Which is better?

Ahh yes, comparing a band to a racist organisation. Great analogy.

The KKK has more "users" than Linkin Park. Which is better?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ima have to go with the KKK on this one.

 

 

Metacafe already does that. Metacafe is better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet which has everyone heard of? Which has more users? What does this say about the proposed model of business?

 

 

 

The KKK has more "users" than Linkin Park. Which is better?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to be misusing "users" here. You'd best say followers and in which case, more people probably like LP compared to the KKK

 

The KKK has more "users" than Linkin Park. Which is better?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ima have to go with the KKK on this one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, bashing LP makes you the cool kid :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, I DID intend to use the roll-smiley there.

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, bashing LP makes you the cool kid :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, I DID intend to use the roll-smiley there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not bashing LP. I was just being sarcastic because he didnt really have any point...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. and because at school we all bash LP to become the cool kid .. :roll:

Ofcourse id take the 1.65 bill, are you kidding me? :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im just saying, at the begining they creators of youtube didnt sit down and say "hmm lets make a big site and sell it for 1.65b!". They did it for fun, and they let everything be free and no poppups etc. Thats why it grew so fast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It still would have grown fast.. It's not like people were like "Hey, these guys are just doing this for fun, I'm going to put my video on there or watch a ton of videos!"

 

Ofcourse id take the 1.65 bill, are you kidding me? :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im just saying, at the begining they creators of youtube didnt sit down and say "hmm lets make a big site and sell it for 1.65b!". They did it for fun, and they let everything be free and no poppups etc. Thats why it grew so fast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It still would have grown fast.. It's not like people were like "Hey, these guys are just doing this for fun, I'm going to put my video on there or watch a ton of videos!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course they thought, lets build a niche site get lots of fans - viewers and then sell it on for a huge profit, or why else would they invest there time and money into a site for "fun". Your dreaming if you think it happened by accident. Everything is free with no popups to get the crowd in and once you are near the top of the "hit" list the big boys look at buying you out.

Of course they thought, lets build a niche site get lots of fans - viewers and then sell it on for a huge profit, or why else would they invest there time and money into a site for "fun". Your dreaming if you think it happened by accident. Everything is free with no popups to get the crowd in and once you are near the top of the "hit" list the big boys look at buying you out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, they didnt do it that way. Why? Because no sites at the time existed like youtube, and no sites (even myspace) barely had any fanbase. The field of online fame and popularity didnt exist. They never would imagine a field that doesnt exist would generate 1.65b. No one would. And they didnt really put alot of work into the site. It was essentially the same, from start to finish. They just needed to get new servers as unexpected expansion began. Read the article in Time about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for kiddio, I never said that. I said it grew so fast because you didnt have to pay for hosting, there was no pressure for premium membership (because it didnt even exist), and there was no spyware or poppups. I never said it grew because they did it for fun. Probably a misunderstanding.