Serendipity35

Gizmodo called it GooTube last October when Google agreed to purchase the hot but without profit web site YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock.

A lot of people thought it was crazy. Google had a video service that worked, but it hadn't caught the viral fervor of YouTubers.

YouTube also was having problems with infringing content on their site and Google was supposed to bring audio fingerprinting and other technologies to the table to help work that out. But those problems still are present and are probably even larger issues now.

Personally, I see the differences between the two services as much simpler, and their future reminds me of an older technology's history. Google allows longer video to be posted. The video quality on YouTube is lower. Google started charging for some video. Since Google Video attracted less of the YouTube audience with its goofy video uploads, there appeared to be less junk clogging up the service. Oh, there is still plenty of stupid video, and lots of overlap - a Google video search on a genre like comedy turns up video from both services - but they are not equal.

Examples of this include the BBC programs (one of which I will write about tomorrow) that Google offers which is just not what you expect to find on YouTube.

And I wouldn't have a problem with them keeping the two services apart - one for pay to play and higher quality, another for user-content (original) to get posted, voted on and commented about.

Apple, Inc. has its Music Store full of music and video that users pay for, and it has iTunes U - an entity that looks on the surface like the Store but is actually separate. You can't search the NJIT on iTunes U site by searching in the Music Store (you need to enter through our website, as you do for other iTunes U colleges).

Perhaps Google (and Apple) plan to merge these services into one megasite of free and pay content. I'm OK with that approach too. It certainly simplifies search and gives wider exposure to the free content, but it always irks me when I find a video in Google that I want to check out but I'm not sure I want to spend any money on.

Whenever I hear Web 2.0 entrepreneurs interviewed about their new whizbang project, the inevitable question is "What's your business model?" Usually, the answer is that they don't have one, but the quick answer is sell ads. It worked for television for half a century and has been invading the Net in general for the past decade or so. It's likely that the YouTube video one day will have a introductory commercial before the one you clicked actually starts. And following the patch of TV commercials we will complain, ignore them, laugh at them, try to create technology to zap them, but we'll generally look at the service as free.

BTW, there actually is a gootube.net - it's real estate videos.