YouTube Moves Closer to the Boob Tube

By The New York Times
YouTube

In January, YouTube rolled out a version of its popular video-sharing site that was tailored for the television screen. It offered a stripped-down interface that did away with extra features like comments and scroll bars. The result looked more like the screen on your cable service’s channel guide than a Web site.

But YouTube.com TV only worked on game consoles connected to a TV set, such as a Nintendo Wii or a Sony PlayStation 3. (YouTube, which is owned by Google, has also made its clips accessible on televisions through TiVo, Apple TV and select TV sets.)

On Tuesday, the company unveiled YouTube.com/XL, a revamped version of YouTube.com/TV that works on any Web browser that can be connected to a TV, whether it is a game console, a PC or another device. It is intended to be viewed on a television set or on a large PC screen. It can be controlled not only with a keyboard, but also with some remote controls. And it can be made to display a series of clips continuously, a bit like photos on a digital photo frame. The viewing experience is especially striking for high-definition videos watched in full-screen mode on a TV set.

YouTube’s move is the latest in a string of developments that aim to bring Internet content to television screens and to allow users to interact with that content from their couch. It comes just a week after YouTube’s top online rival, Hulu, unveiled a desktop app that can be controlled through a remote.

However, many content providers, already nervous about their content being watched online, have been reluctant to allow television viewing of full-length episodes they post online. As a result, YouTube XL, which stands for “YouTube extra large,” does not have many of the full-length shows from premium partners that are available on the regular YouTube service. The company said it is working out rights issues with content owners. For now, YouTube.com/XL has no ads, but expect that to change, especially if YouTube is trying to persuade TV networks and film studios to make their content available on the extra-large screen.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

anonymous June 2, 2009 · 7:19 pm

Adapt or die.

Eugene June 2, 2009 · 8:49 pm

boob tube? i thought something else….

Shine June 2, 2009 · 8:51 pm

The content providers should be very careful. If they do not evolve, they might well discover one day that their audience has left for new media, of perhaps lower overall quality, but free and versatile…

dk jones June 3, 2009 · 8:13 am

more & more consumers are cutting the cable/sat cord & w/ the change to DTV there are times when i can’t watch a show due to “no signal” on my $2500.00 HDTV w/ ATSC tuner, so online is how i’ll catch a show, it’s also my “DVR”. if networks & advertisers want to get any $$ from me & others w/ similar situations, they’re just gonna have to step out & believe this is the future of “free TV” distribution. Hulu has already done a couple of “tests” w/ live programming, so they are considering/dabbling the next step of simulcasting on-air & online.

Mike Wyman June 3, 2009 · 11:11 am

For the way all TV will be in the future, one merely has to check out MLB.TV on mlb.com. With a subscription, I can watch any game played this season, whenever I want, in HD on my big screen TV (by hooking up my PC to the TV). The only exception is live “local” games (which are generally already locally broadcast on normal TV.

This is the future, folks and content providers and distributors who attempt to get in the way will be left to die in the road after they’ve been run over by the steamroller of progress.

Marvin George June 3, 2009 · 12:11 pm

Right there is a high enough customer base for this function on the Internet as one ISP is basically doing this. The customers have made the merge of TV and Internet. Google wants to do this as it will be in league with other content providers. The base that Google is going for is growing at a very fast rate and these people are dropping cable and satellite for the Internet for their entertainment. This is why the numbers are dropping. Furthermore this is for one ISP customers they are going for and not any other ISPs at all. They have no caps on the bandwidth they consume in a month. They also give constant bandwidth of what you pay for and not the stop and start which other ISPs give. So nothing is strange in what they are doing.

Ed Salgado June 3, 2009 · 3:27 pm

Simply put, this is the way TV will work in the future. As a software provider for television stations, we see this as an eventuality. You’ll go home, decide what you want to watch, and enter it in a search box. So if you want to watch “Boston Legal” you’ll see all the episodes right there. The system will remember which ones you’ve seen and which ones you haven’t. It’ll download those episodes you want to your DVR for faster viewing. Think Star Trek. It’s TV on *your* schedule.

With all that said, we are still quite a ways from there. There is still no one spot for going to see all episodes of everything. Google is trying to make YouTube that source, but CBS has TV.com and everyone else has Hulu. Unfortunately, for Google, they have pretty much placed themselves opposite the content producers by siding with advertisers in all of their campaigns thus far. Eventually a shakedown will occur and one day, you’ll have a source or two for everything. We’ve already gone through this with iTunes, Napster and the other portals for music.

As to how this will all be monetized is anyone’s guess. CPM is one way, CPV (cost per view) is another. Advertisers will help subsidize this as well once the technology comes about that will allow insertion into streaming video. The commercials will be targeted to boot. Think Minority Report. Based on previous searches, shows watched, and sites visited, the system will place commercials that you are most likely to watch.

And all this is just the tip of the iceberg!

-ed
//www.OneDomain.com

charles wood June 3, 2009 · 11:39 pm

I checked out YouTube XL and I was underwhelmed. The video quality does not hold up on a 24″ Mac monitor. The video is ridden with motion artifacts. This IS NOT the future of television for anyone who seriously enjoys high definition video. But if you grew up on VHS tape, you’ll probably tolerate it.

MoneyBags June 4, 2009 · 11:10 am

Boob tube?

I thought something else too…DAMN IT!

Steve B June 4, 2009 · 12:59 pm

I know I’m one of countless millions who time shift all TV watching, and use TIvo to avoid the commercials. I wish I had a nickel for every Viagra ad I’ve scanned through. If online video gets that bad, or if there is no tivo-like tool to download, present and then scan and watch, then I don’t see using net transmitted video much yet. Likewise, I’ve gotten very used to ad-free web pages using ad-blocking browser plug-ins.

Tom June 4, 2009 · 6:11 pm

“I checked out YouTube XL and I was underwhelmed. The video quality does not hold up on a 24″ Mac monitor. The video is ridden with motion artifacts. This IS NOT the future of television for anyone who seriously enjoys high definition video. But if you grew up on VHS tape, you’ll probably tolerate it.”

That’s my problem with all the internet-based video I’ve seen so far. It just doesn’t look good to me. I haven’t tried YouTube XL, but I’m dubious. What’s the point of having your kickin’ hi-def TV, awesome surround set-up, if it all looks and sounds only passable?

I’m worried that the same convenience/cost-over-quality calculation will be the death of blu-ray as well. Not that I don’t mind low-cost and convenience, mind you…