Comments on: It’s Hulu vs. Brightcove, not YouTube

By: Mathew

Mathew — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:54:59 +0000

I hope that’s the case, John.

And blah (nice name) — I’m discussing the idea, not reviewing the website. I guess that’s a subtlety you probably missed in your haste to post a nasty comment. Or maybe you work at Hulu?

By: blah

blah — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:48:50 +0000

I love it. You’re reviewing a site you haven’t even seen yet. awesome. It’s a good thing they don’t require any journalism skills for crappy blogs, huh.

By: john

john — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:17:15 +0000

Actually, I feel exactly the opposite. As more and more people become online-video savvy, the UGC will only get better/higher quality. Do people really care THAT much about watching TV shows on their computer? It’s the content creators that need to be taken care of, and Vimeo is where it’s at for that.

http://www.vimeo.com/HD

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:57 +0000

Having read most of the reviews, I can’t escape the impression that Hulu is by far the most accomplished and impressive implementation…. of a dead end business model.

The fact that site-builders apparently knew what they were doing is itself is pretty unique for sites commissioned by major corporations, but that doesn’t make the basic concept behind Hulu anymore viable.

By: Pleghm Crimson

Pleghm Crimson — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:36:48 +0000

“Itâ€™s Hulu vs. Brightcove, not YouTube”. Not quite, or at all, I suspect. Sure Brightcove is a competitor. But as more video comes online people will be less interested in UGC. It’s had a monopoly in the market so far. As video becomes more commonplace, people will spend less of their video time on UGC, and therefore, on the YT’s of the world.

Tick tock.