Hacker News Reader

Comment by confluence | Hacker News Reader

I don't think they realise who has the real bargaining power in this negotiation. VEVO needs YouTube - YouTube no longer needs VEVO.

Google will be more than happy to let them walk away and allow remixes and user posted content to fill that hole (it's how YouTube started). VEVO will just come crawling back.

YouTube has a monopoly on online video and they may just turn out to be one of Google's most valuable acquisitions (along with DoubleClick/Android).

> Morris: If Justin Bieber and Adele are somewhere else, that will be where people will go. If you don't have the content, no one will come

YouTube has the people now (daily standing subscriber audience + network effects) - the content comes to YouTube not the other way around. People pay/share video revenue on YouTube by posting via Machinma/IGN just to get exposure.

View on HN

Are you sure about that? If facebook got the rights for the music videos and would integrate them tightly with the rest of their site, chances are that youtube would start becoming irrelevant. You're right that right now youtube has got the users, but facebook does, too, and they especially have the users who are interested in music videos. That makes them especially attractive for remixers etc. too.

Are you sure about that? If facebook got the rights for the music videos and would integrate them tightly with the rest of their site, chances are that youtube would start becoming irrelevant.

Not even slightly. Music videos are a market, but YouTube has hundreds of other reasons it is successful. It could lose music videos without breaking it's stride.

Yes. But I wonder if moving music videos to facebook would create a drain that eventually all other videos would follow.

I very much doubt it. 90% of YouTube users post under aliases, some of which are an important part of their video identity. Posting to Facebook would ruin that.

Simply put, Facebook is (in theory) for people you already know in real life. YouTube most definitely is not, and is an entirely different beast. Facebook is never going to have a 'VidCon' event.

Global instantaneous video hosting infrastructure is a very tough nut to crack and is subject to economies of scale.

My experience with Facebook video has been disappointing (improper caching/not enough resources) and at no fault of their own. Pushing Tbits of video each second around the world is much - much harder than hosting pictures and comments (which is what Fb does admirably).

If Fb cracks video infrastructure - perhaps. But YouTube remains the king of video and anyone who wants to run content needs to be on YouTube (at least for the time being - subject to change at any time).

I've wondered before if Vevo does some sort of CDN style hosting outside of Youtube. Their videos seem to load at a different speed from the rest of the stuff on Youtube.

I've got no evidence other than my own sketchy observation, but the though has crossed my mind several times.

VEVO is a highly viewed channel - hence probabilistically their videos are going to be viewed more often and use more bandwith.

Hence, YouTube caches them more heavily (and distributes them closer to viewers) as a result to probabilistically reduce video latency and cost of hosting.

Same with any highly viewed channel - they all load faster than say something new with ~1000 views which hits a foreign data centre hard disk instead of a localised CDN server's RAM.

I've personally never watched a music video on YouTube. I've accidentally clicked on a Rick Astley link, but I didn't actually watch it...

Working there and posting things like this is probably not a good idea. They have a way of showing up in depositions.

HN still seems under most people's radar :)

I don't think you realize the power Rio has with a JV with Universal. Nor the power that Lucien Grange has with the UMG roster and catalog. Plus YouTube is the only Google property with licensing deals for all four majors, but not all four are in Vevo.

I'm popping popcorn. These Youtube/Google/Music negotiations are always entertaining (if not consumer friendly).

9 of the top 10 most watched youtube videos of all time are music videos.

Vevo is not without leverage here.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_10_youtube_videos_o...

You'll also notice that many of these artists launched (and sustain) their careers thanks to YouTube and channel those views towards live concerts and merchandise sales from fans.

The artists rely on YouTube a hell of a lot more than YouTube relies on them - they come to YouTube now (not true in the past though!).

VEVO is separate from the artists - the artists will drop VEVO if their exposure is unnecessarily limited.

VEVO can play this game if they wish - but I doubt the artists care either way.

PS: Bieber and Gaga owe their careers to YouTube - they don't care if it's via VEVO or their own channel - they have absolutely 0 reason to get off the YouTube train. They'd drop VEVO in a heart beat if VEVO hampered their fan base growth and reach.

Google's own top 10 searches are usually populated with music stars. Taking just last years Zeitgeist we have Rebecca Black and Adele in 1st and 7th place respectively.

Sure it could be people hunting for nude pics and news, but given it's Rebecca Black and Adele, it might be safe to say that it's people looking for their music/music videos.

In short, music is a big deal and if a user is hunting for music they're not going to be loyal to any particular site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com