What’s With the Google Video Store?
Hey, is it my imagination, or is the first really bad product Google has launched?
The dropdown nav disappears when you leave the front page.
There are about 9 music videos for sale.
Why not be the search engine and not the store? I don’t get it. I know these are the first hours of the service, but I just don’t understand the move.
Even if the service was better, why be a store? Why not leave that to the YouTubes and the other Web 2.0 video players starting to emerge? Let them run thoses businesses and then market their wares through Google. I feel the same way about the book digitization project. Let someone else do the scanning. Consumers can find the stuff through Google later on.
Why get into the content business when that other little business called search is the one everyone else wishes they were in?
Am I missing something?
Update: After about a week, it’s getting better. More content is up there and you can now embed a Google video to be played in your own site or blog (good move). But I still have a concern about the overall move. I’d rather see Google be the finder of stuff and not the direct seller of stuff.
These moves make it all the more clear that the biggest challenge for Google (like Yahoo and MSN) in coming years will be a UI challenge. How do they effectively surface all their wares to folks who are visiting the site to do one thing? It’s their biggest challenge and it’s the biggest opportunity for small players.
Update 2: Google sort of agrees…
Um… Diversification? Seems consistent with the AOL deal too. It’s the hope of having a non-advertising revenue stream. Why did EBay buy Skype? Same reason?
[...] Google Video wurde heute wie letzte Woche an der CES angekündigt aufgeschaltet. Der erste Eindruck ist jedoch total enttäuschend: Die Auswahl ist nicht gerade berauschend, die Bildqualität schwach, die Performance mangelhaft die Preise angesichts der Qualität viel zu hoch und die Navigation etwas umständlich. Die meisten Gratis-Videos, die von Usern raufgeladen wurden, sind einfach nur todlangweilig oder peinlich. Europäer sind mittels IP-Sperre von einzelnen Angeboten ausgeschlossen. Es ist jedoch null Problem, dies zu umgehen. Naja, auch Google kann offenbar nicht nur Hammer-Produkte wie Adsense, Gmail und Google Maps aus dem Ärmel schütteln… Die Einlösung des Versprechens, dass Google Video der weltweiten Internet Community ermöglichen wird, eigene Videos erfolgreich zu vermarkten, erscheint noch weit entfernt. Auch scheint jetzt klar, warum Google dauernd propagiert, dass “täglich neuer Content” dazukommt. Es kann ja nur mehr und besser werden…Unklar ist dagegen, warum Google den Suchmaschinen-Approach verlässt und ein eigener Video Store sein will, wie sich auch davenetics fragt. In der Blogosphäre gibt es vereinzelte lobende Beiträge, doch die grosse Mehrzahl der Blogger ist sehr kritisch. Mir persönlich gefallen YouTube und IFILM im Moment besser, doch auch diese Portale haben ihre Tücken. Die erhoffte Revolution in der online on-demand Unterhaltung bleibt auf jeden Fall weiterhin aus. Geduld ist gefragt… [...]
[...] Die Einlösung des Versprechens, dass Google Video der weltweiten Internet Community ermöglichen wird, eigene Videos erfolgreich zu vermarkten, erscheint noch weit entfernt. Auch scheint jetzt klar, warum Google dauernd propagiert, dass “täglich neuer Content” dazukommt. Es kann ja nur mehr und besser werden…Unklar ist dagegen, warum Google den Suchmaschinen-Approach verlässt und ein eigener Video Store sein will, wie sich auch davenetics fragt. In der Blogosphäre gibt es vereinzelte lobende Beiträge, doch die grosse Mehrzahl der Blogger ist sehr kritisch. Mir persönlich gefallen YouTube und IFILM im Moment besser, doch auch diese Portale haben ihre Tücken. Die erhoffte Revolution in der online on-demand Unterhaltung bleibt auf jeden Fall weiterhin aus. Ein wenig NBA und CBS Content mit schwacher Bildqualität reicht noch lange nicht. Geduld ist gefragt… [...]
certainly regarding the book indexing, such a project would have taken off much more slowly and inefficiently had Google relied on other parties to provide content (i.e. scanned books) rather than undertaking the project itself for the most part. The book service however authors and publishers (and geeks) like to moan is a service to humanity, and only those with a financial vested interest seem to be the ones arguing its a bad idea (disregarding the ‘ad hominem’ attacks based almost solely on the fact that ‘Google is evil/the new Microsoft etc’. On another level, if Google were to pour all its resources into its search engine rather than diversifying, then ultimatly one geek somewhere in the ukraine may suddenly find an infinitly more efficient way of finding things on the net and would thus have the potential to destroy Google virtually overnight!
I agree that diversification is behind this. Right now, Google is the best search engine out there (in my opinion anyway), but how long before someone builds a better one? And where does that leave Google? By having the ability to not only find content anywhere on the Web, but also provide some of that content, Google provides themselves with other options.
However, I agree that they have a long way to go before the video stuff is ready. The store is crap. The only place the dropdown navbar shows up is on the first page. I have to go back to the first page if I want to change my search mid-stream. Bad UI design. And, have they ever heard of genres?
However, one thing that I think they did right, which I haven’t seen on iTunes (which I use) is the idea of day pass for movies. Online video rental over the web? That’s smart. Forget $20 a month (from Netflix), I’ll take a dollar a day. Instant gratification and no need to return a movie before I get another one. Smart.
I would argue that Froogle was Google’s first “bad product”, in the sense that it’s been an unqualified flop.
As for Video, it’s just another step toward Google eventually losing its focus on search, morphing toward the portal model, and eventually getting usurped by a next-generation search engine.
Video is a strange beast from both technical and consumer point of view.
No matter how you cut it, the user makes the comparison to telivision. On the technical side, there are a number of barriers that hamper scalability and quality service of streaming video.
In the end, there is the potential for unlimited content and no real indexing mechanism. I suspect, Google hopes to be that mechanism but it might be too much of a challenge for what it’s worth. That is until the critical mass of broadband consumers grows.
PBSKIDS
>>>>Why get into the content business when that other little business called search is the one everyone else wishes they were in?
There are real synergies to be realized with owning content and running searches on content. The content, which they would own, can run on their servers and be indexed as precisely as they would like—offering google a tighter hold on the search biz vs. any other search engine on the land. Since Google owns the largest online ad network, they are in a unique position to make more money per ad than almost any other company. Therefore, by owning more content, their revenues in the non search ad space can grow exponentially. As for video, Google needs to make an aggressive play into video as this is the next big content format. If google does not help to steer this new content shift, they may end up losing a big chunk of their future search business.