Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Communications Businesses Google Media Television

YouTube Coming Soon To Cellphones 78

Posted by Zonk
from the finally-something-useful dept.
Krishna Dagli writes to mention a short New York Times article about a deal between Verizon and Google. YouTube will be coming to Verizon's VCast service. There's lots of catches: It's a $15/month fee, and you don't gain access to all of the content YouTube has to offer. Just the same, the article makes Google out to be thinking along these lines; YouTube may start showing up in many different places. From the article: "'Everybody carries a phone with them, but they may not have a computer,' said Steve Chen, chief technology officer and a co-founder of YouTube. People can 'take the phone out of their pocket while waiting for the bus' and watch a video, he added. Verizon Wireless and YouTube said the service would be available early next month. The companies would not discuss the financial terms of their deal but said Verizon would have the exclusive rights to distribute YouTube videos on mobile phones 'for a limited period of time.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Coming Soon To Cellphones

Comments Filter:
  • what will creep out of such a relation ???

    CC.
    • Gizmodo [gizmodo.com]are correctly reporting the same story, but from the angle that your content is being sensored and you are paying for it.

      FTA:

      Verizon To Censor YouTube For Cellphones

      Watching YouTube videos on your Verizon Wireless cellphone will cost $15 per month, according to the New York Times. The deal is expected to be officially announced later today and launch next month but it's important to note that you won't be paying $15 per month for the YouTube you know and love. Nope, the video service will

      • by jamar0303 (896820)
        Suddenly all hope is lost- they'll NEVER approve of all the Japanese content that is the reason I visit YouTube. At least there won't be any AMVs featured, though.
      • Damn I got excited when I heard I could get youtube on my cell, I've got Verizon too... I'd be more then happy to pay $15 a month, but not if it's only going to be pre-approved content... forget that.
    • by vertinox (846076)
      what will creep out of such a relation ???

      An angel with devil's horns and a taste for not being evil while still overcharging for the service?

  • ...that Verizon may also be implicated in any potential copyright infringement litigation over videos on YouTube? Or will the deal be structured so that Google shields Verizon in case that occurs? More importantly, is this a way for Google to ensure it's own little bit of "net neutrality," by making Verizon a partner?

    • It's unlikely that Verizon would be implicated in copyright infringement lawsuits, they are just a carrier and probably won't be doing any the filtering of the videos (just as your ISP and your computer manufacturer would not be liable for content you viewed at home in the event of copyright infringement litigation against YouTube).

      I'm curious to see how YouTube/Google will limit the number of videos available. Will they hand edit the top videos to ensure no copyrighted material is available (in which c
      • by diersing (679767)
        Why go through all the effort of filtering yourself?, just wait for the cease and desist orders to come.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by russ1337 (938915)
        >>> "they are just a carrier and probably won't be doing any the filtering of the videos "

        That is not how I read it. They appear to be charging the consumer $15 a month for a heavily 'filtered internet'. If Verizon wish to remain free from infringement they should be a 'common carrier' and should not be providing restricted content. IANAL, but it appears that if they restrict some content, they are liable for all the content that gets through.

        Why don't they just offer 'common carrier' data
  • by SNR monkey (1021747) on Tuesday November 28, 2006 @10:25AM (#17015838)
    I thought cell phones were dead [slashdot.org]?
    • by aicrules (819392)
      Yes, they are now known as "Competely different name so you must buy one even though it is still a cellular phone" phone.
  • by aadvancedGIR (959466) on Tuesday November 28, 2006 @10:26AM (#17015840)
    And the logical next step would be to offer discounts to people submitting more stupid videos shot with their cellphones.
  • Vcast (Score:3, Informative)

    by TrippTDF (513419) <hiland@NOsPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday November 28, 2006 @10:29AM (#17015874)
    I had this service for my phone about 18 months ago, and canceled it after a month... most videos took forever to start playing. In half an hour, you could maybe watch three or four 2 minute clips. The quality was OK for the phone, but all in all it was not the best viewing experience. Unless they have changed a lot in the last 18 months, I'm willing to bet this is going to be a big flop.

    I love Google, but it seems that Youtube is becoming a monkey on their back- they paid a ton of money for it, and now they don't know what to do with it. Cell phones? Not the type of thinking I'm used to seeing with Google, but I'll hold off on a final judgment when I see it.
    • I wouldn't go for it. Most phones I've tried have awful navigation and overly stiff buttons anyway.
    • EVDO (Score:4, Informative)

      by fistfullast33l (819270) on Tuesday November 28, 2006 @10:47AM (#17016132) Homepage Journal
      The big question is whether or not you were in an EVDO area. If you were, and your phone had it enabled, then Verizon definitely would have a problem. If you weren't or your phone didn't support it, then you probably would notice a difference between then and now. I just bought a KRZR (stupid name, nice phone) for my upgrade and I got a month of the VCAST music service for free. You can definitely notice a difference between EVDO and non-EVDO.
    • Just out of curiosity, how in the hell could you justify paying $15/mo for this service?

      Thats the thing that gets me...I KNOW this type of data transfer does not cost the companies anywhere near this much, yet they continue to keep raising the prices of new services that are still just data being streamed. It is absofuckinglutley ridiculous. And don't even get me started on the fact that SMS costs more than voice chat.

    • I subscribe to VCAST, I really enjoy the Comedy Central clips they have on there (Daily Show, Colbert, South Park). I can not view videos if I am not in an EVDO area. That said, a 3-4 minute video buffers and starts playing within 5 seconds or so. Video qualtiy appears to be slightly below NTSC when viewed on such a small screen. The $15 may not be worth it to some but it has been for me. News updates from the major networks, weather reports, sports updates (fox, espn, and some others), and they also h
  • nickle and diming (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Speare (84249) on Tuesday November 28, 2006 @10:30AM (#17015886) Homepage Journal

    Verizon?

    If they routinely break phone features like user-mp3 so they can charge money for crappy ringtones, what kind of charge would there be for downloading a whole video? When I got my phone last year, even the little "wallpaper" background images were for-pay, and if you switched from image A to image B to image A, you'd have to buy image A twice! Who in their right minds would pay-per-view for 92x64 bitmaps?

    • by plover (150551) *

      Who in their right minds would pay-per-view for 92x64 bitmaps?

      Your question shows a lack of understanding of their customer base. With their insulting crippling of phones and fear-based advertising Verizon continually aims for the bottom 50% of the population, and that's going to include an awful lot of people not in their "right minds".

      You can't even fault them for it -- even idiots end up with money that they want to spend, and Verizon is simply there to collect it. It's capitalism in action.

    • by binarybum (468664)
      I will pay whatever it takes to watch stupid cat tricks on my cellphone! I will allow verizon to make direct withdrawals from my savings account ad libum if they allow me to take screenshots from stupid cat trick videos and make them into wallpapers for my cell phone.
    • by mnmn (145599)
      Who in their right minds would pay-per-view for 92x64 bitmaps? Teenage girls who have just been handed a cellphone by their fathers who need to keep a check on them. Do you know how many teenage girls rack up $300 or more in the first month of their cellphone ownership? If I owned a phone company, I would want to milk out this demographic as well.
    • I'll concede that they pulled a switch on me with my "mp3" phone (it actually only plays WMA's) but they still allow me to set my own songs as ring tones. As far as cost goes, if you factor the VCAST cost over the course of a month of $15 that makes it about .000005787 cents per second. If the video takes 30 seconds to download that comes to about .0001736 cents for the video.

      I know this is some real fuzzy math. I just think it is humorous that people are so quick to shoot something down when they don't

  • For a company who's motto is "Don't be evil.", it seems strange that they would go with the most evil cell phone company around (and believe me, the competition was fierce). I know several people up in the Northern Virginia area with Verizon and they all hate it, but due to exclusive licensing agreements Verizon is the only one that works on the Metro. If someone else got in there they would switch in an instant. The Verizon reps know this too, they treat you like dirt, have the worst phones, and still m
  • Sorry Verizon, http://tinytube.net/ [tinytube.net] beat you to it. And it's free.
    • this really going to be that popular. I mean, look at this http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6137236.html [zdnet.com] story from last week, talking about how little people actually use their video ipods for video. I can't imagine cell phones being much different.
      • by Essef (12025)
        I've got an Nokia E61 with WiFi and a 2GB MiniSD card.
        With a brilliant 320x240 screen and RealPlayer, viewing
        mini videos is a treat.
        I especially love TinyTube.net for when I'm bored and in a WiFi hotspot.

        Now, if only someone will make a generic mash-up like YouTube or Google video
        that will transcode CNN, BBC etc. in the same way TinyTube does...

        I've disabled 3G on my sim altogether. Don't need it, won't pay for it.
      • by jamar0303 (896820)
        Well, make the phone screens bigger. Look at Japan- phones with 3-inch screens like the Sony Ericsson SO903i [nttdocomo.co.jp]are coming out (on a side note- this phone is certainly what the US should have got as a Walkman phone instead of that small thing with not even a 2-inch screen). Certainly better than a lot of what the US has to offer. It would actually be practical to watch TV on a phone with a 3-inch screen (and for pocketability, the Japanese don't complain, so you shouldn't either- big screen equals big phone n
  • copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Tuesday November 28, 2006 @10:34AM (#17015962)
    With Verizon now charging users to access content contained on YouTube, doesn't that open the door even wider regarding charges of copyright infringement? Now that money is being exchanged for the service, it seems that copyright owners could now go after Verizon (and Google) for selling copyrighted material that isn't theirs to sell.
    • by Vr6dub (813447)
      If it's like the rest of their VCAST service it won't be the YouTube you're familiar with. They will be screened videos that they have deemed copyright-free and probably won't allow you to search YouTube's site.
  • by LordSnooty (853791) on Tuesday November 28, 2006 @10:36AM (#17015994)
    The idea of watching Star Wars kid, that nervous sports reporter and bored skateboarding teenagers on my PHONE is surely too good to resist.
  • Do I really need to see lonelygirl15 and friends on my daily train commute? Oh wait, that's what I carry my notebook around with me for (work? bah!). Now I will be able to watch lonelygirl on my lap and Renetto in my hand. More tubes for me!
    • Just when normal mobile phone ringtones and conversations on the bus couldn't get any more obnoxious. I tellya what, the first fool to start up Brookers Brodack on his phone on my way to work is getting thrown right through the breakaway fire-exit window.
  • Working hard for you [to give us the money while still managing to give you the worst bang for your buck]
  • Reason 1:

    It's a $15/month fee

    This alone is enough for doomed failure. Some bonus reasons:

    and you don't gain access to all of the content

    Doesn't sound good. I want the same content I get on my PC. Whatever the mobile industry tells you, video streaming is too darn slow to start up (not to mention the numerous steps you usually have to go through to even get to the video in the first place). I will never use such a service until:

    • It's free (paying for just being "on the air" is expensive enough
  • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat (796938) on Tuesday November 28, 2006 @11:02AM (#17016352) Homepage Journal
    'Everybody carries a phone with them


    *checks his pockets* Sorry, don't seem to have a phone on me. Oh that's right, now I remember, I DON'T HAVE A CELL PHONE MORON!

    Why is it that people assume everyone has every worthless gadget out there? I know it's hard to believe but there are those of us who don't have a cell phone, don't need a cell phone and don't want a cell phone.

    Just like there are those of us who don't have that insecure Flash product installed on our computers, don't need to have Flash installed and don't want to have Flash installed.

    Technology is great and all but this nonsense that people should always have the latest and greatest crap is one of the leading causes for our negative savings rate [bea.gov].

    • by God'sDuck (837829)

      Technology is great and all but this nonsense that people should always have the latest and greatest crap is one of the leading causes for our negative savings rate.

      Erm...I understand not *wanting* a cell -- but I'd hardly call the technology "latest and greatest", seeing as it's over 20 years old, and has been ubiquitous since the late nineties (2+ *billion* in service at the moment). They're only the "latest and greatest" in the sense of the original Nintendo, or the second coming of flannel.

    • by drsquare (530038)
      *checks his power outlets* Sorry, don't have electricity in my house. Oh that's right, now I remember, I DON'T HAVE ELECTRICITY MORON!

      Why is it that people assume everyone has every worthless utility out there? I know it's hard to believe but there are those of us who don't have electricity, don't need electricity and don't want electricity.

      Technology is great and all but this nonsense that people should always have the latest and greatest crap is one of the leading causes for out negative savings rate.
  • i mean, this does sound like a cool idea and all, but fuck paying $15 a month.. Google needs to do what it does really well, and that is to make their other services compatible with PDA Phones and Smartphone web browsers.. they did a great job with my personalized homepage, and gmail.. they should work on their own Video Search engine next in my opinion.. i use WiFi for any type of internet connectivity on my PDA phone.. not any of verizon's crappy wireless broadband services that aren't even offered in my
  • Yawn (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tacokill (531275) on Tuesday November 28, 2006 @11:09AM (#17016468)
    So, for $15, I get to stream amateur videos to my cell phone?

    How about, instead, I stream my own videos to myself using Orb [orb.com] and along with that, I can hit some online TV broadcasts, some internet radio, and prolly my mp3 collection (haven't tried that yet). And oh yea, one last thing: it's $0.

    But yea, this Verizon/Youtube thing is cool too.
    • by ahoehn (301327)
      Orb seems to be too good to be true for me. I just got a new phone with EVDO and installed ORB on my home PC, thinking there must be some catch.

      I didn't see much use for it right away. Then, a week or so later, I was on my way home, sitting in an airport with EVDO coverage with an hour to kill. I thought to myself, hey, I left my computer running ORB, as well as uTorrent with automatic RSS downloading. I spent the next hour happily watching the latest episodes of the Daily Show and Colbert report on my p
      • by tacokill (531275)
        Of course the legality of downloading tv shows could be questioned, but it's not something that keeps me awake at night.

        Since you are streaming it to yourself, I would be surprised if there are any copyright implications with respect to Orb. uTorrent might be a different story but as far as Orb goes, it's just software that transcodes and streams and there isn't anything in the laws that prevents one from transcoding and streaming their own videos to yourself.
  • This will probably work as well as Netscape's paid browser. Remember, part of what makes YouTube attractive is that it's "free" and people don't seem to mind the many ads served on each page. (Ditto with Google.) Mess with the model and the next best video serving site will step up; the world doesn't need YouTube.
  • YouTube or Flash Works Fine on the Nokia N95 [thenokiablog.com]

    No extra charge, just pay for your usual data plan. N95 is a GSM phone. Other Symbian-based phones coming out should have same capability too.

  • Already got it in an interface that is far more comfortable to use.

    Boost mobile phone (yo!) hacked blackberry 7520 to work on boost mobile with the sim from the first phone, Nokia 770 and some software installed.

    I have unlimited net access 24/7 for $0.35 a day I can view most video content (dont because most is crap) plus get a real interface for web surfing, email, etc that wont cripple my thumbs or make me blind looking at a tiny 1.5 inch screen with low res.
  • This article How do I put YouTube Files on my Moto Razr? [group29.com] shows how to get them on one type of phone. Following the instructions, yeah I can view the videos. But really, how great is that? On the Motorola RAZR, the movies are 176x144 3GP files. Follow some of the steps in the article to turn the flash file from YouTube into a 176x144 video. The videos on YouTube are already lower res to conserve bandwidth. ESPN already made a similar play with their ill-fated Sports Heaven [wikipedia.org] promotion. I took a YouTube snapsho
    • by fupeg (653970)
      One of the things that YouTube could start doing is making a 3GP encoded version of the videos that are uploaded to it, along with the Flash version they already make. This should be noticeably higher quality than a video that was encoded to Flash first then to 3GP. Alternatively, they could make this "from source" encoding of the videos picked by Verizon, assuming they keep the original source around. Either way, this would seem like a value-add to Verizon, making the deal a lot more valuable to them.
  • by Chacham (981)
    Everybody carries a phone with them, but they may not have a computer

    /me cries. It's not that he is ignorant. It's that it got posted on slashdot.

    For those who skipped Computer Science, a "computer" in the CS world, is something that has input, uses input to process something, and output. A cell phone is a computer, albeit not a PC. A PC is the "computer" we all know and use. A cell phone is a specialized computer.

    It is not amazing that the cell phone can get video from youtube, that has always been possibl
    • by foobsr (693224)
      and there is guaranteed bandwith for it

      Quote: "A Cell Phone company who claims to be the best, who have the least amount of dropped calls, (because they wont drop a call, they would rather have you sit through static and have to pay). who likes to rip of customers by telling them one thing and doing another. ..."

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ver izon [urbandictionary.com]

      CC.
  • This is all lost on me, I watch live tv on my phone, it's got a web browser and java never had any problems with youtube - what kind of phones do you guys have that you'd need a special walled garden to access youtube and other sites ? I've had video on my mobile for years - I use it to upload clips from hockey games to youtube and photos straight into flickr - I thought everybody could do that (?)
    • You must have Verizon. You see, Verizon has sandboxed all of their phones - they can because they use a backwater standard that prevents anyone from bringing in a non-approved device to their network. All phones with advanced functionality are hobbled before they hit the streets. You get what you pay for. That's not wisdom, it's a slogan - on Verizon, you only get what you have paid for, and you must pay for it each time you want it. That's one reason I'm not switching to Verizon when I break free of US Cel
      • You must not have Verizon. Sorry 'bout that. My rant made little sense to begin with. It makes no sense with the "not" missing. *shrug* serves me right for not hitting preview.
  • This is perilous. Our society has not yet resolved the problem of the internet's long memory. Most of our custom is built upon the now-obsolete idea that memory does not last long or spread very far. And so the birth of the Information Age has brought with it the personal catastrophes such as "Dog S*** Girl" and "Shemale Vids Guy" and that asshat Jason Fortuny. These are all examples of normal, limited outbreaks of personal information that turned into unjustified disasters for the affected persons, sim

  • Having worked in the cellular industry (or is it wireless device industry now?), I am willing to take a guess at what you will really "get" for this monthly fee.

    You pay 15 dollars a month to gain access to a mobile site with the YouTube logo on it. Verizon will give you streaming access to video clips for upcoming movie releases, music videos (but only the first minute), and commercials for television shows.

    Any clip you want to keep (for some asinine reason), will cost and additional 2.50.
  • Doesn't anyone find it ironic that YouTube has made billions off of the backs of all the free content basically donated to them to use on their site? What if the content creators/uploaders got a cut of that action? What if you uploaded content to YouTube that was DRM protected and in order to view it you had to pay the content creator?

    I just looked up how to make my own DRM WMV files. You know what? You have to pay a third party if you want to make your own DRM content.

    These DRM people have you coming a
  • I've been watching YouTube on a Treo 700P for weeks using Kinoma with Sprint and there's no content filtering or billing. Why is this suddenly news?
  • And the first wave is typically underwhelming. Look at video on the Internet - there were many companies developing web applications similar to Youtube back in the dot-bomb era: DEN, Popcast, etc. My team developed one for Sony that was never deployed, but would have likely failed anyway.*sigh* But the "ecosystem" just wasn't ready: Most of the population didn't have the broadband access necessary for a good experience. To make matters worse, a lot of questionable business models were applied to this

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...