That said, I wouldn’t count Google out just yet.

Here’s why:

Clearly the NBC/News Corp venture is all about creating another advertising medium not much different than broadcast/cable TV. That is a proven model of revenue and profit generation that goes back nearly 75 years.

But it won’t replace YouTube (or its successors).

Why not?

Because NBC/News Corp. is a top-down approach (e.g. broadcast TV) and, as such, is different than YouTube which is P2P and/or bottom-up. There is plenty of room for both models.

And not only that…

I believe that the studios and Google could both have profited far more by working together than working apart. But, for whatever reason (e.g., “control”) this isn’t happening. As a result, both parties will make less money than if they had cooperated.

In short, we’re talking about the demand for apples AND oranges. Why not sell them both in the same market instead of… well you get the picture.

We’ve seen this before — remember how the recording industry “greeted” Napster? Yes, Napster is gone, but the recording industry ain’t doing so well either. In fact they were so sick back then they couldn’t attend the funeral of the goose that laid the golden egg.

The only one who could walk away under his own power was the customer who now controls the market more than ever.

This time it might be worse for the studios. Here’s why…

The main difference between Google and Napster is that Google has deep pockets (Napster had no pockets) and Google has diversified the implementation of its technology. Oh, and their market cap is … approximately a lot more than Viacom, et. al.

These are just a couple of reasons why I wouldn’t bet against Google right now.

[Note: I was inspired by I Help You Blog’s “101 Great Posting Ideas For Your Blog” to write this post about the ongoing struggle for control of the Internet video market.]

by Herman Lee

Pros

1. Easy to install: Most of the network cameras on the market are plug and play and/or have very simple to follow instructions for both the hardware and software end.

2. Comparatively cheaper than other security systems: Instead of paying a highly trained technician to install a complex CCTV system, and pay him on an ongoing maintenance arrangement- you can have a network camera security system that can stand on it’s own against CCTV and traditional security systems.
3. Works with your existing computer network: If you already have a home network, then the network camera works with your settings, so you don’t need to pay more for the proper security infrastructure.
4. Provides peace of mind: watch your home, watch your childs room, watch your vacation home, watch your pets while you are on vacation, etc
5. See remote areas: as far away as across the globe, or your own front porch from a centralized area. Can even remotely view your children at the nursery (depending on the nurseries policies though this is becoming more standard)
6. Flexibility: Prefer not to be tethered to the security control panel or hire a full time security professional to monitor things, then get security alerts which you can view from cell phone, laptop, or PDA device, and provide multiple users access to the various security assets.
7. Receive alerts via email when detects motion, either when someone visits your home, or when your children leave home to hang out.

Cons

1. May have poor image quality depending on model and configuration, and wireless cameras in general have poorer image quality on the lower to mid range.

2. For more bells and whistles, like sound recording, scheduled emails, and motion capture, it varies greatly from model and software description.
3. Generally, outdoor surveillance equipment is more costly, especially if you want the ability to remotely pan/tilt, zoom in, zoom out, and want a waterproof camera. However for a home system this is probably not as urgent as opposed to for a business situation.
4. Drains computer network resources, so if you don’t have a speedy computer, then there’s a chance of a slight slow down in your collective resources.

Remember that despite the cons, the benefits outweigh them as they provide great security results at a lower installation and maintenance cost than traditional Closed Circuit Television systems.

About The Author:
Find more compelling reasons to implement or enhance your surveillance system using home security cameras and CCTV. For an up to date industry daily subscription to the latest security worthy news, please bookmark our wireless security blog.

Computers and Technology Related Articles

[First,] you indicate that you’re interested in buying a big fat warranty…

…then ask ask the sales assistant to lower the item’s price. Since big box electronics stores are often pushed to sell warranties, they’ll be willing to budge on the price of your item - especially if it’s got a big price tag.

[But wait, there’s more…]

Then when checkout time comes, you have a change of heart on the warranty. Simple enough.

(HT to Lifehacker)

• Viacom Wants Its MTV… Pulled From YouTube
• NBC’s Zucker Lashes Out at YouTube
• Is Google Killing YouTube With Pre-roll Advertising?

…and so forth.

I know how they feel. I believed that Google couldn’t help but succeed, given the enormous amount of money that Google’s audience represents in advertising revenues. Reading these stories was a disappoitment because I felt that Google might let this opportunity slip through its fingers.

But then I thought about it some more and here is what I found…There is plenty of blame to spread around.

In fact, although you could blame Google, I think the lion’s share of the blame should rest with the studios — based on their ignorance, greed and a desire to control forces that are grossly beyond their control.

Hear me out and consider this:

Of all the studio honchos that I’ve read about, only Anne Sweeney, president of Disney-ABC Television, got it right when she said “We want to go wherever our viewers are. Viewers have control and show no sign of giving it back.”

Is she really the only honcho who understands that the viewers are walking away (in droves!) from “traditional” movie, music, and broadcast TV prodcuts? Maybe not. But she does show a refreshingly pragmatic approach to the market.

Seems obvious — there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. That said, Disney is still taking the ultra-cautious approach, having cut a deal with board director Steve Jobs’ iTunes and not Google. And make no mistake: iTunes represents only 1/40th of the volume of downloaded music — and they’re the Big Dog in the pay-for-play music industry. Hunh.

Makes you wonder what would happen if someone offered non-DRM mp3s for, say, 3 cents each. I think there’s money to be made on that, boys and girls. But the traditional studios won’t do it because they want the Big Score.

In other words, all the other studio heads are still thinking about old patterns and protocols. For example, television networks are used to getting $0.30 and more in commercial advertising revenues per viewer for a hit show.

But the revenues from Google advertising are considerably lower than that: A page eCPM of $1 generates only a tenth of a cent per view in revenue. Multiply that by ten and you still have only a cent. But those fractions-of-a-penny have added up to billions-with-a-B for little old Google.

Yes, yes, I know: the content on YouTube is infringing on copyrighted material. But, paraphrasing Sweeney again, piracy is, in fact, a business model.

But that apparaently is too daring a concept for the studio heads. Not only that — they cannot even acknowledge that a YouTube video ain’t broadcast TV and never will be.

So, I ask you: who really has their head you-know-where?

Bottom line: movie, music and TV entertainment content isn’t worth what the studios think it’s worth — not anymore, not in a Bit Torrent/YouTube world.

In THAT world, I think Google has a better idea of what (and where) the viewers are — and where the money is coming from and how much of it there really is and how to get it.

Anyway, that’s all just my opinion. I might be wrong.

But I doubt it.

Note: the computer in the video is probably unpatched and otherwise unprotected. But all the same — it’s a good lesson in what NOT to do with your computer.

At its most basic level, the wisdom of crowds — let’s call it WOC, so I don’t have to type as much — means that the aggregated thought and knowledge of thousands or millions of people can be smarter than trained individual experts.The WOC has been around forever — it’s what democratic elections try to tap into. But the Net takes it to a whole new level. “The Internet provides a mechanism to get lots of diverse opinions and aggregate it in a quick and cost-effective way,” [Wisdom of Crowds author James] Surowiecki tells me.

So if a company can use the Net to tap the collected intelligence of its employees, the employees will make better decisions than the CEO. IBM, Google and others have tried this. Wikipedia, written and edited by tens of thousands of unpaid contributors, should be better than an encyclopedia written and edited by specialists. News sites such as Digg, which lets users vote stories to the front page, should surface the best stuff more effectively than professional editors.

Except it doesn’t always work that way.

Maney goes on to detail speed bumps that Digg and Wikipedia have run into. It’s a good overview — read the whole article.