YouTube becomes Google. What does this mean?


I'm a Google user (duh, I'm on Blogger) and a YouTube user. Now the two are one:

Internet search leader Google is snapping up YouTube for $1.65 billion, brushing aside copyright concerns to seize a starring role in the online video revolution.

The all-stock deal announced Monday unites one of the Internet's marquee companies with one of its rapidly rising stars. It came just a few hours after YouTube unveiled three separate agreements with media companies to counter the threat of copyright-infringement lawsuits.


And I have to rethink something that I said earlier. In response to all of these names that people were proposing for the new YouTube, I responded that the new name of the company would be "Google."

But I forgot about Blogger, which (as of today) is still being maintained as a separate brand.

YouTube will continue to retain its brand, its new headquarters in San Bruno and all 67 employees, including co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen. Meanwhile, Google will continue to run a less popular video service on its own site.


From the Ontario Empoblog (Latest OVVA news here)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Random Braveman...Random Contest Discoveries With all the hits that he's been getting, it's obvious that Mitzzee and I are not the only ones who have discovered Daily Dancer . Blogpulse and other sources list the following references to Daily Dancer: jrnev.blogspot.com/2005/06/i-might-do-this.html aprilshah.blogspot.com/2005/06/so-much-stuff-so-little-time.html bamapachyderm.com/archives/2005/06/01/omglollmaowtf/ andrightlyso.com/archives/2005/06/01/daily-dancer/ badhairblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/this-is-what-watching-clive-owen.html mickey.ondragonswing.com/archives/006310.html www.tabulas.com/~lainie/877653.html dailydancer.com/plesk-stat/webstat/usage_200506.html showdown.contagiousmedia.org/ The post from Lainie is especially illuminating: Daily Dancer. A computer geek who posts up videos of himself dancing to a different song everyday. This is part of the Contagious Media Showdown awards. Since he needs to get as many visitors per day as possible, I doubt he's reall...
Read more

In which we enter the alternative universe in which police always believe dreadlocked individuals

I previously raised the question about whether Interference Inc. was prompt in letting the authorities know that the so-called bombs in Boston weren't bombs. Now a new question has been raised - was Peter Berdovsky prompt in letting Interference Inc. know that the guerilla marketing campaign had gone sour? And should he have informed the on-scene officers that there was nothing to worry about? The issue was raised because Berdovsky videotaped police at a (supposed) bomb site. This is what the Associated Press said : One of the men criminally charged after placing blinking cartoon advertisements around the city videotaped a police bomb squad removing one of the electronic devices, but did not tell the officers the object was harmless. Surveillance cameras caught 27-year-old Peter Berdovsky videotaping officers removing what they thought was a possible bomb. But Walter Prince , Berdovsky's new layer (replacing semi-guardian Michael Rich ), puts a different spin on the whol...
Read more