The Empire Strikes Back! (New Media vs. Old Media)

Started by Netto Azure March 7th, 2009 11:00 AM
  • 659 views
  • 7 replies

Netto Azure

Kiel

Age 30
Male
Alistel, Vainqueur
Seen November 17th, 2021
Posted September 29th, 2021
9,467 posts
15 Years
Well I like reading Time and Newsweek right?, and I came across some articles discussing the rise of the Internet (and the media being ported to it) and how old media is struggling to keep up. I wonder what do you guys think about this. Who will pay for news now? Are we all going to demand for things to be "free" on the Internet and just blog/tweet everything?

Hulu, founded by NBC and Fox, has become a better moneymaker than Web darling YouTube. The moral: better content wins.
As the worlds of technology and media collide, the same contest keeps getting played out over and over again: lumbering old-media companies take on nimble new-media upstarts, and usually the new-media guys win, since it's easier for them to figure out the content business than it is for the content companies to figure out the techie stuff involved in launching an Internet business. Apple outfoxed the music companies and now in effect controls their business. Google reaps billions by selling ads that run next to content created by others—while some of those creators, newspapers and magazines, teeter on the edge of the tar pit. In video, Google figured it could work the same trick again, so in late 2006 it spent $1.65 billion to acquire YouTube, a site that had built a huge audience by dishing up user-generated videos and pirated clips from movies and TV shows. YouTube wasn't bringing in any money, but Google believed it would figure something out. Meanwhile, Apple was trying to lure movie and TV studios into the iTunes store, just as it had done with music labels.
But this time the old-media guys fought back. In 2007, a few months after Google bought YouTube, NBC Universal and News Corp. announced they would jointly build their own Internet video site.

But guess what? Unlike YouTube, Hulu had legal access to great content—shows from NBC, Fox and others. And it had great technology—a clean, simple user interface and a smart search engine. Today, just one year after its launch, Hulu has gained the upper hand. "The empire is striking back," says Arash Amel, analyst for researcher Screen Digest. Amel estimates that while Hulu attracts far fewer visitors per month than YouTube (8.5 million versus 89.5 million), in financial terms Hulu is actually doing better. He estimates that last year Hulu took in $65 million in U.S. ad revenue and cleared $12 million in gross profit, while YouTube generated $114 million in U.S. revenue but had no gross profit.
Other articles:
How to Save Your Newspaper

Spinor

<i><font color="b1373f">The Lonely Physicist</font></i>

Age 27
Male
Seen February 13th, 2019
Posted October 4th, 2015
5,175 posts
17.3 Years
OOOOH! Free stuff on the interwebz! :D Me is throwing out all my videos and going 2 wathc teh free interwobz! :D WOOT!

I seriously don't care what happens as long as the free stuff doesn't decrease. But in this economy both YouTube and Hulu will kill themselves at the best. :\

Yamikarasu

Wannabe Hasbeen

Age 29
Male
On the Battle Subway to Anville Town.
Seen October 22nd, 2012
Posted December 18th, 2011
1,199 posts
14.9 Years
It is all for the best in the long run, really. Why should we stick with an old technology like newspaper when the internet is infinitely faster and cheaper? Hopefully those companies will be able to transition successfully to the new market, but they can't expect humanity to just hold back and wait for them to catch up.

However, the only bad part about this is obviously the threat of an internet monopoly where everything is owned by Apple or Google. We need to keep net neutrality and the government out of the internet, but we can't just let the internet be taken over by those super companies.

White FC: 0046 2399 7625


Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 1 Day Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
Still, getting a newspaper, taking it to the park, reading it when having breakfast, saving it anywhere... are things you can't do with an internet newspaper. Plus, a physical one is always more comfty for reading. And the solutions? Carrying a laptop everywhere? A palm just for that?

There is a market of people who still want the old kind, even if they use the current ones (like me). What will happen is that only the best, and most stablished newspapers, with a bit market base, will survive. But they will.

Yamikarasu

Wannabe Hasbeen

Age 29
Male
On the Battle Subway to Anville Town.
Seen October 22nd, 2012
Posted December 18th, 2011
1,199 posts
14.9 Years
It would be impossible to take down Google or Apple, as they build almost everything around them.

The newspaper company would eventually go down, however.
I don't think we need to take down Google or Apple, just prevent them from buying up every single good idea.

It would kind of be like the big banks that are failing due to the economic crisis. Those banks are freaking huge, and we should never let companies get that big in the first place.

Oh, sure; go head and leave out Microsoft! :cer_pissed:
Well Microsoft really isn't a big player when it comes to internet companies, so... we'll go ahead and leave out Microsoft. :P (Not that I dislike the company)

White FC: 0046 2399 7625