YouTube founder says TV should be online for everyone

We have an "always on" culture where we expect to be able to get any information or entertainment at any time from anywhere. It's that mentality that is killing off newspaper and magazine companies, and is why traditional radio isn't doing as well as it once was. The next logical step is for that progression to hit broadcast and pay TV channels.

In an interview with AFR, YouTube cofounder Chad Hurley warned television broadcasters that users will no longer be content with watching programming on someone else's terms. We've already started to see this with the shift with 20% of Netflix users choosing to cut the cord, but Hurley is suggesting that not only will the trend accelerate, but that users don't want to be tied down to programming from their own area either. One of the last things tying people to traditional television services is live sports, but he sees Google being more aggressive in obtaining those rights.

Although Hurley doesn't bring it up, broadcasters also need to be concerned with the fact that their programming is already available online through not-so-legal methods. It will be important to provide a better service, like what Hulu and Netflix are trying to do, or become irrelevant to today's changing demographics. It's also interesting to note that some content creators are beginning to understand this shift; Big Brother Australia, for example, puts all of their episodes on YouTube so anyone in the world can watch the show. Ironically though, they don't allow you to watch video clips from their own website.

Source: AFR | Image via Venturebeat

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft cuts price of Surface Pro by $100 for "limited time"

Next Story

Acer's 8.1-inch Windows 8 tablet already marked down to $299

40 Comments

View more comments

ferdefer said,
As much as I don't like Android, Google has it's sight right on the ball and never lost it.

Google is finishing off Microsoft Windows, Office, all mobile OS, Navtech Mapping ( Nokia Here), Yahoo, MSN, Bing, and in time will go for the big guns of cable offering Google Fiber and now this piece of news with YouTube.

Google is already a monster but will be the largest company in the world by far.

What alternate reality are you living in?

ferdefer said,
As much as I don't like Android, Google has it's sight right on the ball and never lost it.

Google is finishing off Microsoft Windows, Office, all mobile OS, Navtech Mapping ( Nokia Here), Yahoo, MSN, Bing, and in time will go for the big guns of cable offering Google Fiber and now this piece of news with YouTube.

Google is already a monster but will be the largest company in the world by far.

Microsoft Windows - Not even close
Microsoft Office - Not even close
Mapping - I agree
Yahoo - probably
MSN - I agree
Bing - I agree

ferdefer said,
As much as I don't like Android, Google has it's sight right on the ball and never lost it.

Google is finishing off Microsoft Windows, Office, all mobile OS, Navtech Mapping ( Nokia Here), Yahoo, MSN, Bing, and in time will go for the big guns of cable offering Google Fiber and now this piece of news with YouTube.

Google is already a monster but will be the largest company in the world by far.

I definitely don't want what you are smoking.

Microsoft is far and ahead of anything google has to offer except for Search and even in search Bing has been growing and has demonstrated that they return the same or better results than google. Now what MS needs to do is expand Bing Search result to other countries and they will see nothing but growth.

Office> Google is far from ever taking over and even people that have gone google apps are coming back in droves to Office. Office 365 is the package to beat.

As for mapping Nokia and Bing are great alternative although most people use google maps by default that could change any moment.

I very rarely watch anything by the BBC or Channel 4 (UK) at their scheduled time any more, instead i choose to watch it when it suits me and this works fine as both have brilliant catchup services partnered with great apps and websites. Unfortunately i find every other channel in this country lacking.

Of course many households now have digital boxes capable of streaming anything from the last few days from any channel so in a way we already have what he talks about. It'll be some time before all the channels ditch traditional viewing but i don;t see this as a bad thing, choice is never bad.

vcfan said,
I don't think this guy knows how sports tv rights work.

He does but if you all move to the internet, all have online tools such as Apple TV or Chromecast then why have licensing agreements with broadcasters when you can broadcast and keep as much money in the sport itself as possible.

Setnom said,
I don't watch TV except the news during meals. The rest of my entertainment I get from the internet.

Why not just watch and read it online ?

I haven't watched "TV" in years. I still watch all my favorite shows of course, but I watch them on my terms now. Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, etc. The idea of having to watch a show at a certain time and being interrupted by commercials seems antiquated and silly now.

Could not agree more, people should be giving as much choice as possible.

Then this is like the whole newspaper debate but for broadcasters. (but they can still make money online just in a different way)

They make money online per click on adds and for showing adds. They have also added a for sale online section (most have anyway) This is done to offset the the cost off people not paying for the news. Also they offer deals and money off vouchers with the real physical paper. They adapted.

Media needs to do the same. Offer stuff like less adverts, extra scenes possibly if you view from real TV. Just make the online ones have less scenes and more adds. To offset the cost online aswell as pay per view ads and click ads they should add pages that go into detail behind the scenes, "the making of" a story of each cast member etc etc these pages should have more adds so more cash for them.

Adapting is key.

The way you get high click numbers is misleading and inflammatory headlines. The classified ads have mostly been taken over by sites like craigslist. The result is we no longer have quality news content and that's what will happen with other media. We'll end up with nothing but reality series and infomercials. That's adapting to the lowest common denominator.

about time reality caught up with real life. Pay for Cable + pay for Hulu only to enter my cable sbuscriber information so I can verify I subscribe to the station to stream a TV show?? c'mon. BitTorrent is wayy easier than that, and the archives go back for decades.

Its about time networks wake up and realize global live streaming of their cable stations over the internet is what people want, and people will pay around the world for that. Cut the cable-guy middleman out of the picture and directly sell us the content on a medium you already have it available on.

I would have cut my cord a long time ago had it not been for ESPN - I have to watch my college football games and I can't get them anywhere else.

sava700 said,
I would have cut my cord a long time ago had it not been for ESPN - I have to watch my college football games and I can't get them anywhere else.

I believe both the XBox 360 and the PS3 have ESPN apps. Not a sports fan so I'm not certain, but I believe they do.

Theres just one problem with killing tv and going internet only.. Buffering!!!

TV won't die for me until technology has advanced enough for these requirements: 1) to be on the opposite end of a house from the router, 2) using wifi which means floors/walls, etc without the need for extenders, 3) no matter what time of day it is 7am, 2pm, or 2am (youtube in HD!!), 4) using any device, 5) no "errors" that require you to restart a stream every 10-15mins(TWC TV website for example). If all that can be met and buffering can be eliminated over wifi then TV can die. But, tv doesn't buffer, I never have to wait for it to load a few seconds and then buffer again on tv.

Buffering over wifi is a complete deal breaker in a bid to cut the cord.. First 802.11G and then N was said to be an end to buffering, that never happened. Maybe it will happen with AC but I won't hold my breath..

Internet television is actually much better for those of us in very rural areas, as long as you can get a decent connection. We've got internet here, it's not nearly as fast as in other places I've lived, but it's fast enough to stream Netflix while other people are surfing. There are two cable providers around here, not counting satellite companies, and they suck. You pay for 60 channels, but starting at channel 20 it starts getting snowier and snowier until it becomes un-watchable after about channel 35. I haven't paid for cable in a long time, but I do pay for Netflix and Hulu because even with only 3 Mbps down, I'm able to watch the shows I want, when I want, in HD.

On the other hand though, I am a huge consumer of traditional radio, and I hope it sticks around for a long time. It's something that, if your internet goes down, will function without having to have a paid subscription or a wire connecting you to the radio station. When I'm going in to work or going to lunch or coming home, or just when I'm going shopping, I turn on the radio and I can get the news, music, talk radio, etc., and it keeps me entertained and abreast of local events while I'm driving.

I just want Eurosport (in standard definition is fine). To get it, I have to buy a $72-a-month sports package (with all these other channels I won't watch). I'd gladly pay $10 a month (or pay per view) for Eurosport, but that's not an option. The issue here in Australia is that all pay TV is pretty much owned by Telstra. Telstra = $$$.

Commenting is disabled on this article.