5 ms·

You seemed to have missed the point. If Youtube's future planning involved using it as a distribution and advertising system for movie or TV studios (an actual

You seemed to have missed the point. If Youtube's future planning involved using it as a distribution and advertising system for movie or TV studios (an actual business model mind you), well that's potentially shot out of the water with Hulu out of the gates with a very good site and team to do that. Also as a destination site, Hulu has more attractive content, actual licensed tv shows and movies. Stuff that are technically illegal on Youtube.

rory096 18y ago
The chances of it ever getting such a deal were slim; the media companies already hated them for stealing their content before, and would not have wanted to reward that with a deal to do it legally (some did, yes, but it was unlikely that most or all of the content would have made it into Youtube- particularly with profit splitting between Google and the companies). Yes, Hulu's content is attractive, but it's different from Youtube's content, which is attractive for other reasons. Just because they're both video doesn't mean they're directly competing.
- j2d2 18y ago
  I was under the impression some media companies had colluded with youtube to allow piracy for a big pay-out once someone bought youtube. This was to let youtube win the video content hosting race through piracy, while still paying for the content everyone thought was pirated. I am having trouble finding a link to support this though. Does anyone recall this? Perhaps I'm mistaken...
- jimbokun 18y ago
  "Yes, Hulu's content is attractive, but it's different from Youtube's content, which is attractive for other reasons." Is Youtube's content attractive for reasons that would make it just as profitable as Hulu's content? Cuban is arguing that it is not.
  - rory096 18y ago
    No, Cuban is arguing that Hulu is somehow "beating" Youtube. Even if it is more profitable, it's more profitable in the same way that Apple is more profitable than Adobe.

rory096 18y ago

The chances of it ever getting such a deal were slim; the media companies already hated them for stealing their content before, and would not have wanted to reward that with a deal to do it legally (some did, yes, but it was unlikely that most or all of the content would have made it into Youtube- particularly with profit splitting between Google and the companies). Yes, Hulu's content is attractive, but it's different from Youtube's content, which is attractive for other reasons. Just because they're both video doesn't mean they're directly competing.

j2d2 18y ago
I was under the impression some media companies had colluded with youtube to allow piracy for a big pay-out once someone bought youtube. This was to let youtube win the video content hosting race through piracy, while still paying for the content everyone thought was pirated. I am having trouble finding a link to support this though. Does anyone recall this? Perhaps I'm mistaken...
jimbokun 18y ago
"Yes, Hulu's content is attractive, but it's different from Youtube's content, which is attractive for other reasons." Is Youtube's content attractive for reasons that would make it just as profitable as Hulu's content? Cuban is arguing that it is not.
- rory096 18y ago
  No, Cuban is arguing that Hulu is somehow "beating" Youtube. Even if it is more profitable, it's more profitable in the same way that Apple is more profitable than Adobe.