Author: Amo

As widely reported across the Internet, Youtube has been bought by Google for around $1.65bn.

But what are the pros and cons of this deal?

Pros;

• Increased online streaming of movies/tv programmes — Google’s move towards providing Online streaming movies is increased. Youtube will probably be used as Google’s venture into that field and will cater towards TV programs and music videos. I believe Google will try to empthasise a more commerical outlaying to increase profits.
• Increased content — Not only from Google’s own video system, but from their contacts too.
• It made the co-creators very rich — And well done to them!

Cons;

• Copyright Issues — A vast majority of the content on Youtube is either illegal or breaching some form of copyright. There have been many times that I’ve seen whole movies on there (I think it was Jackie Chan’s Police Story V), and whilst there haven’t been many suits against Youtube (mainly because they had no money), Google will try and ensure that Youtube is on the right side of the law.
• Advertising Revenue — Google has bought Youtube’s stock, they haven’t actually given the creators of Youtube real money. The reported $1.65bn is on paper. Youtube’s advertising revenue hasn’t reached the figures projected by many. Many analysts believe that Google will try to encourage advertising or broker commercial deals with major film and music studios to increase revenue. Google will push Youtube to increase advertising, and the co-creators won’t get their money until they can demonstrate that they can get a profit from Youtube. This may mean reducing the number of social movies that made Youtube the site it is today.
• Monopoly and privacy — Google’s increasing monopolisation of technology systems such as the Youtube’s of this world is worrying many web users. And it has been compared to that of Microsoft’s globalisation of technology systems, instead of innovation, it has bought the latest technology system. What does Google’s intend for the future of Youtube? How does it impact on it’s own video.google.com website? Will Google’s hunger for personal information be a factor in the revenue streams that they hope to generated from Youtube?
• Copycat websites — there are tons of Youtube-like websites out there. If fans of Youtube leave for a rival, that isn’t owned by Google then how will it affect Youtube? Will fans really leave a product they’ve liked for so long?

In the end, Youtube’s sale is great business for the co-owners and I personally wish them all the luck in the world. They deserve it. Youtube has succeeded because of its fans, not despite of them. Whether Google’s acquisition of Youtube is a good thing or not has yet to be answered, it will be interesting over the next few months to find out whether Google will step its authority on copyright issues, and whether fans will desert the system for a similar site?

Links:

• Now on YouTube: Google’s gamble (BBC News)
• A message from Chad and Steve, co-founders of Youtube

Team Tiger’s 28 slater has now completed it’s mini viral series, although it took itself incredibily seriousily towards the end, I really enjoyed the series and look forward to more viral comedy skits from the Team Tiger team;

The entire 28 day slater episode’s;

• 28 day slater: Episode 1
• 28 day slater: Episode 2
• 28 day slater: Episode 3
• 28 day slater: Episode 4
• 28 day slater: Final Episode

One of the more anticipated games of this month will be the Scarface game. Based upon the hit movie starring Al Pacino, this is a GTA-like action game where you will star as Tony Montana, trying to rebuild his drug empire and taking out other rival gangs as highlighted in the movie.

At last they will be able to explain how Tony Scarface Montana survived the point-blank-range shotgun blast to the back, the high fall to his swimming pool as well as the various gunshot wounds affilicated upon him by Sosa’s hired hitmen. I believe the story goes is that this game is more of a “what if?” IE: What if Scarface survived Sosa’s death squad? What if he never felled to his death, and what if he lost everything in the process and had to start again?

I have to admit, I am intreged by this game. Is it just another GTA rip-off, will it’s younger PSP brother, “Scarface: Money Power Respect”, be better than the crappy PSP game “Gangs of London”? Will they actually use Al Pacino’s voice, or have they hired a voice artist?

All these questions will hopefully be answered next week, when Scarface is finally launched in the UK for PC, XBOX, PS2 and other formats;

Link:
Scarface: the world is yours

According to the BBC, Google is set to buy Youtube for around $1.6bn. In my opinion, although it may represent great business to the owners/shareholders of Youtube, I believe it may harm the image of youtube.

Google has become a dominating force, along with Yahoo, and MSN. The fundamentals of Google’s “Do no evil” has been sold for top dollar, and now Google’s intrusion on systems like Youtube just plain stinks.

Yeah sure, I understand that companies are built to be sold, that’s how you make money; that’s how the creator of Hotmail made over $100m when he sold it to Microsoft, and that’s how the creators of Myspace made over $100m when they sold it to Rupert Murdoch, but the thing is to me, Google’s own video system (video.google.com) clearly isn’t as good as youtube, and although regular viewers may just “accept” the transition as nothing to worry about, I do.

Why?

Google’s own creeping monopolisation of Internet services reduces competition, is bad for Internet users and Google’s own personal hunger for getting and storing personal data is starting to worry many people.

The change will probably be transparent, but I worry (perhaps wrongly) that Google’s influence will not be as bad I predict, but I worry that Youtube will just become another fan favorite bought by a corporate Goliath.

Link:
Google to buy youtube (BBC)

One of the wittest blog’s I’ve read recently is Oliver Davies’ 100 Jobs Blog. Based in Middlesbrough, Cleveland, Oliver has been applying for jobs that he has no right applying for but which he applies for anyway…

As highlighted on digitalspy, Oliver first introduces his blog by saying that, (quote below);

Ok, so I’ve had all sorts of job related problems. Got made redundant in March and, despite applying for loads of jobs I’m qualified for, I’ve failed to even secure interviews (it appears freelance work loses you massive amounts of respect in the job market!)…

I then branched out into applying for other things I was sort of qualified to do (i.e. data processing, copywriting, etc.) but had equally poor success with these…

So, after a bout of depression about the whole thing I’ve come out the other side and decided to do something vaguely juvenile to cheer myself up.

Since I can’t get a job I’m qualified for, I’m going to start applying for 100 jobs I’m patently NOT qualified for/have any experience in – things that are strange or financially rewarding or stupid, etc. – and then writing up what happens in my blog. Maybe it will change my luck, maybe it will open up a new opportunity. Maybe it will just stop me from going totally mad!

I’m going to try and apply for a different job every day and if you’d like to know how I’m getting on, feel free to check out my blog…

Oliver has applied for tons of jobs, including “Head of Culture of Buckinghamshire County Council”, “Chief Executive of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts”, “Floating Supernumerary Manager”, “Lap/Pole Dancer”, and “Male Escort”

Oliver’s blog has already been picked up by the Guardian, BBC Radio 5 as well as other radio shows.

The whole concept definitely has the makings of a good book, in the Danny Wallace/Dave Gorman mould.

Link:

• Oliver Davis’ 100 jobs blog
• Original thread on Digital Spy

I’m a great fan of Youtube. To me, it is better than the Google and Microsoft one for lots of reasons, but mainly I can see the potential for small-time film makers, businesses and much more besides.

Jay Leno is here in this clip showcasing some of his favorite youtube video’s.

Link:
Jay Leno’s Favorite YouTube videos

Although I’m not a fan of podcasting (I get incredibily bored after 20 mins of listening to the same guy… maybe there is a lack of jingles?)… blog talk radio is certainly very interesting.

“Blog talk radio lets you host your own talk show online. Receive live callers, interview guests, and broadcast to an unlimited number of listeners. All you need is any type of phone, an internet connection, and something to say. All your listeners need is streaming audio or any type of phone should they choose to call in.”

It’s like having your own online podcasting talk radio show. Streamed live or recorded, it gives podcasters a different take on their usually pre-recorded shows, and some of the talk radio shows seem very interesting.

Link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/

Emily Chang’s eHub is a brilliant web2.0 resource which is constantly updated with tons of links, buzz and gossip and the latest web applications, sites, social software, blogging, Ajax and much more besides.

Link: http://www.emilychang.com/go/ehub/

Recently released, “War on Terror – The Board Game” has met some fierce backlash from terrorist victims as well as the general media. But is it really in bad taste, or is it something more?

Andy Tompkins and Andrew Sheerin, both from Cambridge are the people behind the boardgame based on global terrorism and have already run into storms of protest over their idea.

The Cambridge duo got an early taste of the possible backlash when they were thrown out of one toy fair, and banned from a further two.

The game comes with an “Evil Balaclava” and players can collect “suicide bomber cards” bearing the slogan: “Like a boomerang, but more dangerous. And he doesn’t come back.”

But the venture has sparked fury among the gaming community.

One post on boardgamegeek.com message board says the game is: “Offensive no matter which side of the war you are on.”

The writer adds: “Even if you don’t favour the war, why would you want to play a game that allowed you to be a suicide bomber? Deplorable.”

Garry Clarke posts: “I’m all for political debate, and even satire, but I’m not sure if a board game is the correct platform, adding, “I really think that it actually cheapens and degrades our society.”

The makers claim they aren’t doing anything wrong and that the venture is “satire” and that the game isn’t “insensitive”, but rather fun for “all the family”.

Mr Sheerin said: “We hope people will pick up on the satire and that they’ll have fun playing it, because we think it is a good game.

“But also that it will help underline the various things that we feel strongly about like the hypocrisy and the double-standards.”

He added: “I would hope that the victims of terrorism would welcome this game in that it is an attempt to open an honest debate.”

Strangley, I believe that this game is in bad taste and doesn’t help the discourse for those who oppose the war on terror, for whatever reason, and yet I can’t go as far as some people who say that this game should be banned, or that the co-creaters should be locked up for incitement to terrorism.

Indeed, I do understand what they are trying to do. Some people have argued that games like Risk (world conquest), and even Monopoly (greed) are just as bad. Even Monopoly had it’s “Ghettopoly” and Risk, it seems, has it’s own “Ghettopoly” in the shape of this board game.

I won’t be buying the game, but I would be interested in seeing what happens to the game in a year or so’s time. Will it fall under, like it’s Ghettopoly counterpart? Will it actually help debate on the issue? And is all the media fuss over this board game out of context?

Only time will tell.

Link:
War on Terror – The board game (Board Game Geek)