rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Mavericks
he's just pissed off his team lost... |
|
nucci6
join:2004-12-13
State College, PA
| Controlling Jerk....
User generated content may not be as slick as a commercial production but it gives the average (and not so average) joe a springboard and opportunity.
Cat Head Theater (look it up on YouTube) may not be prime time viewing but the mark Cuban's of the world want to deny us the opportunity. |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Really?
Only a moron will miss the opportunity! I agree that the price (based on analyst) is inflated. However, YouTube has capture a great audience and loyal users. With the right idea they could began delivering “legit” content for free add revenue driven or offer ppv downloads…
I mean the BRAND has been created who will not want that BRAND. |
|
Jeffrey
too dark too early
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Dix Hills,NY
clubs: |  NO HOV Lanes!!!
No HOV lanes!! They don't work!! I don't care if it's the Long Island Extressway or his version of the Net. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| Cuban more and more becomes...
... a real, whining loser asshole. He used to be the guy who spoke out against the loser, dying RIAA and its corruption-based legal influence and I always said finally, somebody is speaking.
But recently Cuban increasingly became the classic out-of-touch rich idiot who really thinks he knows everything better - somebody needs to tell him that the fact he was able to fool a truly moronic Yahoo! to buy his soon-to-be worthless Broadcast.com for $5B+ worth of stocks during the peak of the dotcom heydays simply means he was lucky to be in a good position at good time... |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| Clogged highway vs clogged tubes
Did this idiot Cuban realize at all he managed to sink himself down t othe level of Sen. Ted "Bridge To Nowhere" "Series of Clogged Tubes" Stevens, the clown of the Senate?
(Sssshhhh, I feel so ashamed of this retarded, corrupt old fart in a public position... and his circus always gets out to the intn'l press... ouch...) |
|
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| Well...
...considering he made his money in this sort of realm, and else nobody here can claim the same, I'd say he has a lot more cred than anyone else here in commenting on the market and economic reality of ventures like YouTube, whether anyone likes it or not
He's right, in that YouTube would need a much more-solid plan in order to justify its value to anyone. They exist in a grey area that will (and should) scare some potential suitors off -- the most popular things on YouTube are usually illegal and unauthorized for them to even have. If you ripped those away, their model no longer makes sense. And that's not an unlikely scenario necessarily. |
|
Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL
2 edits | Who's paying who what?
OOPS! I click a link and read some net neutrality stuff and went off on a tangent. But I'll leave this here just for the sake of......leaving it here.
------------------------------------------
The ISPs seem to want to spread misinformation about who is paying for what when it comes to the net. They claim the Googles, Yahoos and whoever else are not paying their fair share.
In reality, EVERYONE is paying for the internet. I pay to access whatever I access (porn). The content providers pay for access to supply the content. You can't be on the net if your NOT PAYING FOR IT!
If the ISPs feel the content providers are using too much bandwidth, they should rethink their methods for charging for internet access. The only way I can see an ISP making a mistake in regards to a contract for access to the internet is by giving the user unlimited bandwidth. And I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen too often unless you're really trying to build a customer base and break even.
Eh... Smurf'em!
The only thing I see is greed! ISP 1 gets charged by ISP 2 for bandwdth usage and in return ISP 2 pays ISP 1 for whatever it uses. The money goes in a big ole circle! They're just trying to put icing on the round cake. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to kamm
Re: Cuban more and more becomes...
quote:
Cuban increasingly became the classic out-of-touch rich idiot who really thinks he knows everything better
Hit the nail on the head. Keep in mind that Cuban is responsible for HDNet. YouTube is the polar opposite of Cuban's strategy. He thinks people care about high video quality, regardless of what the actual content is. YouTube is about having popular content regardless of quality. The popularity of YouTube rubs in his face the fact that content, not quality is king. It doesn't surprise me at all that Cuban doesn't like it.
Sure, there's lots of illegal stuff going on. But that's not much different from the beginning of music sharing. The television studios need to learn from the music industry's mistakes and figure out a fair compensation mechanism to give people what they want. He is very right that the lawsuits will start the moment there's someone with deep pockets to sue.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to Primis1
Re: Well...
said by Primis1  :...considering he made his money in this sort of realm, and else nobody here can claim the same, I'd say he has a lot more cred than anyone else here in commenting on the market and economic reality of ventures like YouTube, whether anyone likes it or not Considering he made his money in a completely different era and business I'd call it a fairly ignorant but flatering comment...
He's right, in that YouTube would need a much more-solid plan in order to justify its value to anyone. They exist in a grey area that will (and should) scare some potential suitors off -- the most popular things on YouTube are usually illegal and unauthorized for them to even have. If you ripped those away, their model no longer makes sense. And that's not an unlikely scenario necessarily.
Of course it's BS - if somebody wants to sue YT nothing holds him back - studios have more than enough money to do it. YT has very little money to fight back in our retarded, money-based legal system.
The fact is that YT is an excellent promotional tool for them and obviously they want to turn it to a revenue source - most likely Cuban is simply bitter because he's out of this business with HDNet on YouTube... |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to Primis1
said by Primis1 :...considering he made his money in this sort of realm, and else nobody here can claim the same, I'd say he has a lot more cred than anyone else here in commenting on the market and economic reality of ventures like YouTube, whether anyone likes it or not He's right, in that YouTube would need a much more-solid plan in order to justify its value to anyone. They exist in a grey area that will (and should) scare some potential suitors off -- the most popular things on YouTube are usually illegal and unauthorized for them to even have. If you ripped those away, their model no longer makes sense. And that's not an unlikely scenario necessarily. I have to agree. After you get through the first 6 posts of all anti-cuban or attacks on the man, we get to the first real thought out post.
Cuban has a point here. A lot of the videos I have seen on YouTube are unauthorized for sure. That isn't to say that there are legit things on there, but someone isn't going to invest that much on a site that can be sued at any time. The only reason why it hasn't been sued is because there is no money in companies for them. If someone invests money in them, then they will get sued like crazy. You can take that to the bank for sure. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL
| reply to Primis1
Youtube is a disaster waiting to happen. It's usefulness is limited to providing free hosting of BS videos of which only a handful of people will watch.
If Youtube adds a PPV portion, then and only then will they be a money making machine. As it stands right now, NOPE! |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to kamm
said by kamm :said by Primis1 :...considering he made his money in this sort of realm, and else nobody here can claim the same, I'd say he has a lot more cred than anyone else here in commenting on the market and economic reality of ventures like YouTube, whether anyone likes it or not Considering he made his money in a completely different era and business I'd call it a fairly ignorant but flatering comment... He's right, in that YouTube would need a much more-solid plan in order to justify its value to anyone. They exist in a grey area that will (and should) scare some potential suitors off -- the most popular things on YouTube are usually illegal and unauthorized for them to even have. If you ripped those away, their model no longer makes sense. And that's not an unlikely scenario necessarily.
Of course it's BS - if somebody wants to sue YT nothing holds him back - studios have more than enough money to do it. YT has very little money to fight back in our retarded, money-based legal system. The fact is that YT is an excellent promotional tool for them and obviously they want to turn it to a revenue source - most likely Cuban is simply bitter because he's out of this business with HDNet on YouTube... Yea, just like P2P is a excellent promotional tool, but look at all the companies suing the hell out of it. The difference here is that YouTube is a site that can be shut down at any time. There is no money in it for companies to sue and shut it down. Its just a matter of time until a company goes after them. Their best bet is to wait until someone with deep pockets buys into the site and then the lawsuits will come.
As for him making his money in a different era and business, I would say thats not accurate. It was in the internet in broadcast.com which is pretty damn close to what YouTube is into (internet broadcasts....DUH). Different era for sure! Broadcast.com would never sell for as much today as it did when he sold it. The key for a good businessman is to strike when the iron is hot. He did what he needed to do to make him hundreds of millions of dollars.
Give the man a little credit.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
IGGY
No Guru Just Here To Help
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-30
Chatham, IL
| Funny how the little guy never gets credit
Bubble 2.0? Funny how everyone is hyping the new buzzword. But it's sad that once again the only people getting press are the well known internet celebrities. Nothing new offline or online. Just gets old. Many people have been talking about "Bubble 2.0" long before Mark Cuban or even myself. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to see the little guy get acknowledged everyone once in awhile. Oh wait that is right it was me having the Bubble 2.0 debate with Michael Arrington in Seattle this summer. But I guess those that aren't millionaires, billionaires, talking about the latest hyped product / website or in general just making our focus on this daily. I guess we deserve no recognition ever.
Ok rant over. Next Bubble 2.0 article please. This term and everyone jumping on the bandwagon is almost like the whole Podcasting thing. Half the people don't even understand it. But feel so hip using all the neat buzzwords.
--
Test PC Security
Cable Diagnostics
BLOG ZoneAlarm Help Vista 5728 Beta Insightbb 6000/512 |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to Primis1
Re: Well...
YouTube is over-valued. No doubt. And there's no clear proof they're able to make a profit.
quote:
He's right, in that YouTube would need a much more-solid plan in order to justify its value to anyone.
But he's not just saying that. He's traditionally stated on-line indie broadband video will fail no matter what. That includes Apple, Google, Youtube, whomever. His opinion is that if you don't partner with the cable industry, you will fail.
And as far as business models working, it doesn't need to in order to erode Cuban's - or say Time Warner Cable's customer base. Because YouTube isn't a massive money maker means it won't erode traditional video customers as the sector blooms?
Assume YouTube gets sued and survives. They fight a convoluted DMCA battle and lose, they still can offer indie content (which hopefully improves) and content from outfits like the Daily Show that don't mind rebroadcast.
Assume YouTube gets sued and dies. A thousand replacements spring up, many offshore and out of the reach of Cuban's lawyers.
Either way the traditional video model is in trouble. Indie producers will become big-time producers, and customers will drift away from traditional TV if the content is there.
Maybe not today, but in a few years as the pipes widen, watch out. Cuban knows this, but is doing a gloom and doom tap-dance to scare off serious investors and advertisers from rival video solutions. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
2 edits | reply to Jeffrey
Big chief Sack-ah-ja-crappa
This is what you get when you clone a human from a hemorrhoid, a fully functional rectum where his mouth should be. |
Mark you total arrogant a$$hole. So what if a proud Aunt wants to share the pride she has in her niece's tap dancing. There are a host of others out there that would enjoy watching such things and would share the pride they have in the children of their families.
YouTude gives an outlet to all kinds of people to express themselves in all kinds of ways. There used to be local access shows on cable, some of these shows where quiet interesting but dingle balls like you, Cuban killed all of them off. Heaven save us from Dot-Com shi'a heads.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to IGGY
Re: Funny how the little guy never gets credit
quote:
Doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to see the little guy get acknowledged everyone once in awhile. Oh wait that is right it was me having the Bubble 2.0 debate with Michael Arrington in Seattle this summer. But I guess those that aren't millionaires, billionaires, talking about the latest hyped product / website or in general just making our focus on this daily. I guess we deserve no recognition ever.
Who are you? And why do you deserve credit for simply mocking the Web 2.0 meme? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Cuban's Argument Has Merit
The concern over lawsuits is a legitimate one. It only took a few lawsuits to sink Napster the first time. Further litigation resulted in the US Supreme Court ruling that Internet services which facilitated copyright infringement were in fact, guilty of some of that infringement themselves.
YouTube is doing the right thing by licensing copyrighted content, but all it will take to sink them is just one pissed off rich copyright holder who can lawyer them to death to knock them down a few pegs.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
dlhusk
Premium
join:2002-06-29
Carrabelle, FL
1 edit |  Mark
I hope your team does better. |
|
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: Well...
said by Karl Bode :Either way the traditional video model is in trouble. Indie producers will become big-time producers, and customers will drift away from traditional TV if the content is there. Aside from pure conjecture and speculation, has there been ANY evidence to back this up, Karl? What exactly is going to spark this great shift, and move people to it?
OnDemand and DVR's seem to be pretty popular with people and I don't see any crying out for a shift away from it. And your cablecos and dish providers are well in control of those already. These things have already given the end user more control over what they watch and when.
Nor do I see people spending hours and hours on YouTube -- they digets things in bite-sized 5-minute increments usually. There's really nothing stopping a cableco from offering their own YouTube-ish servcie through OnDemand, which then renders anything else irrelevant.
It seems like a pretty poor plan if you're banking on everything panning out just so, because there's simply no evidence anyone does really want it... |
|
