When they first came launched their 'tv station in a box' software technology i wrote about how this is a perfect example of how web 2.0 or whatever you want to call it is making all of us more efficient and more productive simply be effectively reducing the cost of tools.
Being able to mix/edit videos, provide graphic overlays etc and basically do everything that a reasonably priced video mixing desk is able to do....all for free (or for freemium eg 1 x 15-30second commercial every 8 mins) is fantastic.
(oh and if you want to do live mobile crosses to "in the field reporters" you can use QIK another freemium tool, to stream live cell phone video to the Mogulus mixing desk).
Interesting to read today that Gannett have just kicked in $10m investment into the company
What caught my eye was the quote at the end
In March, Max told us that he figured most video streamers were going to have to find a way to charge users, because advertising appears unlikely to pay the bills: "If it doesn't work, then I'm not sure how long their VCs will want to pay video hosting bills with no business."
So my question of the day is..... "Would you pay $10 a month to allow people viewing your YouTube content to view the content with better quality streaming?"
(eg publisher is subsidising better quality for the viewers looking at their videos).
With tens of thousands of videos being uploaded every day you would have to think a reasonable percentage would be interested in paying more for better quality downloading?
BTW: Do you think YouTube would really be as interesting if they got rid of the 96% as suggested by Ashkan Karbasfrooshan