That being said, the original is still incredible. Here’s the extended original version (the Hitler scene starts around the 39 sec mark).

Very well done, indeed.

Via kottke.

Kyncl’s relationships in Hollywood would help in securing premium content; and, more important, he understood entertainment culture. He brought “the skill set of being able to bridge Silicon Valley and Hollywood—an information culture and an entertainment culture,” he told me.The crucial difference is that one culture is founded on abundance and the other on scarcity. He added, “Silicon Valley builds its bridges on abundance. Abundant bits of information floating out there, writing great programs to process it, then giving people a lot of useful tools to use it. Entertainment works by withholding content with the purpose of increasing its value. And, when you think about it, those two are just vastly different approaches, but they can be bridged.”

The crucial difference for me, however, is that this shows a clear misunderstanding of google’s business model.  For hollywood, or the entertainment industry, there’s a clear product being sold.  The challenge for their business is keeping you coming back for more.  Ticket sales, DVDs and now streaming video are examples of different media, but the product is still the same.  Google, on the other hand, cares very little about that kind of product.  For google, you are the product they care about.  Your data, your behavior, your actions.  You are the product, and you only depreciate if you stop being ‘engaged’ in the brand. Each action you make helps Google to refine and distill their digital version of you.
 

On YouTube, the niches will get nichier, and the audiences smaller still. But those audiences will be even more engaged, and much more quantifiable. Advertisers have to rely on ratings and market research to get even a rough approximation of who’s watching which show. Because YouTube is delivered over the Internet, the company will know exactly who is watching—not their names but their viewing histories, their searches, their purchases, their rough location, and their online social connections. As Shishir Mehrotra, YouTube’s head product manager, explained to me, “Advertising will be done at the level of the audience rather than at the level of the show. Content is no longer proxy for an audience—we know who the audience is. We know what your preferences are, the types of shows you like to watch.” If you posted a video of your trip to Hawaii on YouTube, chances are YouTube is going to advertise airfare to Honolulu to you. Advertising can therefore be highly focussed, not the blunt instrument it is now.

It’s a striking difference between the old and the new.  What’s interesting about this (and I’ll follow on with this in another post) is that a) the old industries of print journalism and entertainment don’t seem to really grasp this concept, and b) it also seems like the concept of youtube is shifting very radically, the YouTube of 5 years time will be a very different beast to what we know today.

Also, its a bit shocking to think that it’s only been in existence for 7 years, the web has changed so much because of sites like YouTube.  Self expression and consumption have changed immeasurably.  Where it goes next is hard to say, but it does look like YouTube will be governed more by ad impressions, studio content and improved algorithms.  

We’ll be watching to see what happens next.

does anyone google for google anymore?

To clarify, I use chrome and as such I don’t normally go to google.com anymore. I just type in my search query and go. The same for firefox, sadly not the case for Safari. This, however, has changed the way I think of the URL bar in web browsers. It no longer equates to a finished thought or item – it means search to me now. So, my question remains: does anyone google for google anymore?

I just noticed that the site search results are heavily biased towards google, away from Bing. The split reads like this:

Google: 98.3%.
Bing: 1.7%.

Heavyweight vs. whom?

Another difference between Apple and Google: as Apple grows more successful, they make their users happier, with better-designed products; as Google grows more successful, they annoy their users with ever more intrusive advertising.

Google’s main business is advertising. Is it then any surprise then, that google’s success comes hand in hand with more advertising? It’s misleading to compare Apple and Google, their drivers are so inherently different.

via daring fireball.

+1′d by 148 people

Plus one-d? What craziness is this? Since when is “plus one” a verb?

Seriously. Head over to youtube and see for yourself. Ridiculous.

Mind you, the new as seen on feature is quite good. I wouldn’t have spotted it though, without noticing the moronic (aka branding out of control) plus one. Actually, scratch that. It doesn’t seem like branding out of control – in many ways it reminds me of a few microsoft marketing zealots I once knew, who would tell you windows vista was heads above their evil competitor (windows xp). Having brand equity is one thing, not knowing the difference between brand and reality is another.

I liked having access to the main products in one spot. I hate navigating multi-click menus.

I do agree with MG, regarding the likelihood that the google navigation will eventually creep up into the browser controls themselves, but I do wonder if that will make them easier or harder to find/use? The google search has been a part of the browser as far back as I can remember (showing my age here), so that precedent has been set. It will certainly be one way for google to differentiate their browser even further, it even seems more like a step towards an OS based experience than a browser based experience.

javascript:void(prompt(”,gApplication.getMap().getCenter()));

3. a window will pop up showing you the gps coordinates of that location4. done!Hope it helps!

Is it just me, or does it look like the google New York illustrators have taken inspiration from Rem Koollhaas’s 1978 book ‘Delirious New York‘?