FTA...

Calacanis says YouTube can currently generate about $2 to $4 per 1,000 views, depending on the video. So a video that costs $500 to produce would need to be viewed about 160,000 times to break even at a $3 per 1,000 views revenue rate. Not unreasonable over a several years for highly searched terms.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mahalo-4-2011-1

Here's a sample video using the new Vid.ly service.

Update: Posterous won't let me embed the HTML5 tag.  Here's a link to the video.

http://vid.ly/8e4g8r

This is the best step toward valuable connected TV experiences that I've seen from anyone (excluding gaming experiences).  At the core is the concept of user triggered pop-ups on your tv that provide interactivity (e.g. polls, shopping) to the traditional television experience.  Lots of potential here.  Very cool.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/yahoo_tv_is_a_paradigm_shift_for_interne...

Netflix is joining the Standard & Poor's 500 index.  Wedbush Securities feels they're over valued and puts their 12-month price target at $78 per share.  The stock closed today at $194.  Ouch.  I don't agree with the $78 price target, but do think they are overvalued.  Regardless, they will continue to get my $20 per month -- even if their streaming licenses are reduced to 'I Love Lucy' and 'Perry Mason'.  I'm a fan.

Ironically, while Netflix continues to transform digital media two of the three companies that got the boot from the S&P (The New York Times Co. and Eastman Kodak) have been disrupted by it.

FTA...

"Netflix used an open-source network, the U.S. Postal Service, to launch an alternative distribution business without asking anyone for permission," said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor and author of "The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires." "Now they are using another open-source network, the Internet, to transform the business. It is much easier for Netflix to change, because they don't have to undergo a kind of religious conversion like media companies will have to."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/25/business/25netflix.html

The NYT posted a ridiculous Apple, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo comparison article over the weekend. I'm not even going to link back to that nonsense. The only thing it really communicates is that the big boys in consumer technology try everything. This is what happens when you have piles of money to play with. It's a content-free article. Still, I'm sure it got plenty of page views. That's frustrating. Even more frustrating is that Nick Bilton (the author of the NYT piece) would write this. The New York Times is planning on charging for content at some point in the future. They're going to need add more value to get people to pay to read their words. In the article there is a list of product categories on the y-axis and Apple, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo on the x-axis. Then a dot was placed for each place where any of the companies had an offering. To make that eye chart useful it should show revenue (historical + trending would be nice) per dot. Then it should call out the (high/medium/low) strategic products that need to exist without a stand alone P&L. Additionally there should be a row that shows the remaining revenue for each company that the chart doesn't cover (e.g. enterprise software revenue). Profitability per dot would be the cherry on top. That would be fascinating to read (especially with the trend data). All of that would take real work. I'm guessing even professional writers don't have enough time to do that kind of analysis. I get that, but still feel gypped by this article. Now I want the info. Have you run across a more in-depth comprehensive analysis of these four companies from the product/revenue/profitability perspective. I'd love to give it a read. I'd even pay you for it if it's accurate. How much? Not sure. My reservation price is probably around the cost of a text book - say $150. That brings up another topic. Is there a business opportunity for low-cost analyst reports for the masses? Something between a good feature magazine/newspaper article and a $5K analyst report? Something short and concise, but with powerful visuals that help me quickly understand the situation? You tell me. Bottom Line: We have plenty of data in our life (too much in fact). Lists are abundant. Smart analysis is where the value lies - and where there's value there is money to be made.

Apps stores - they're popping up everywhere. The mobile space is littered with them. Now they're creeping into the living room and your HD television. The question is will they last? Will there be 2-3 winners? Dozens of niche players? Will they all die? Amazon is launching an app store too. Their new Kindle Development Kit (KDK) got me to thinking. Surely Bezos had to squeak this out the door before Apple's news next week. But they raise a broader question. Are consumer apps just a new form of content? And if so, are they more like music, film or television? They feel most similar to music. You buy them for cheap and use the same bits over and over. Video games feel more like movies. And web content (e.g. popular blogs) feel like television. This isn't a perfect fit, but it's interesting how it all lines up. If apps are similar to selling record music that begs a new question? How long will consumers treat them as something valuable? Something they're willing to pay for with cash? I don't have an answer, but anyone betting on an app store should be looking for one.