Revved up for Revver

Sexy (http://tinyurl.com/w287n) genius Stephen Colbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert) of the Colbert Report (http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml) claimed that Google owed him half a billion dollars following their acquisition of YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/) because he is "all over the YouTube" and comprises "a third" of their content. My gut tells me his figures are a tad high (and my gut outweighs his) but as always he exudes truthiness. I'm almost sick of saying it but: content drives sales. Did you know TV shows were created in order to sell TV sets? It worked then and it's still working in today's digital era. Apple fights to keep iTunes prices down because it drives iPod sales. Sony pushed out Blu-Ray movies to fuel PS3 demand. YouTube sold for more than a billion dollars worth of stock because they had a vast supply of content. Unfortunately, contrary to Colbert's expectations, YouTube has no intention of sharing that windfall with the owners, providers, or distributors of that content. Might be legal but it sure as hell ain't cool and I'm not digging it as the main path of my video future. That's why I've decided to focus instead on Revver (http://one.revver.com/). After a bit of research, including a few views of Chris Pirillo's head-to-head comparison of YouTube, Google Video and Revver (http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/11/27/youtube-vs-google-video-vs-revver/), I think I'd be foolish not to choose Revver as my primary video distribution service. Not only is the video quality better, but it supports subscription and they share ad revenue with owners and distributors. That beats the hell out of their competitors' means of attracting content and ultimately, content drives sales. Addendum: after a check of several search engines, I've decided to embrace the phrase, "content drives sales" (http://tinyurl.com/vq4bx), and also Ask.com sucks.

CateGoogles: general_tech culture_or_lack_thereof Mood = excited