Time magazine named YouTube “Invention of the Year” saying:
What happened? YouTube’s creators had stumbled onto the intersection of three revolutions. First, the revolution in video production made possible by cheap camcorders and easy-to-use video software. Second, the social revolution that pundits and analysts have dubbed Web 2.0. It’s exemplified by sites like MySpace, Wikipedia, Flickr and Digg – hybrids that are useful Web tools but also thriving communities where people create and share information together. The more people use them, the better they work, and more people use them all the time – a kind of self-stoking mass collaboration that wouldn’t have been possible without the Internet.
The third revolution is a cultural one. Consumers are impatient with the mainstream media. The idea of a top-down culture, in which talking heads spoon-feed passive spectators ideas about what’s happening in the world, is over. People want unfiltered video from Iraq, Lebanon and Darfur – not from journalists who visit there but from soldiers who fight there and people who live and die there.
The next revolution will be the aggregating of video content by subject into “shows”. All the searching for good videos takes too much time. Watchers of videos need an easy way to get a stream of good videos on topics they are interested in — they need “producers” to pull together these “shows” of videos and serve them up.
Blink.tv allows users to search for video from multiple sources and it serves up a sampling of these videos. The service is not “intelligent” enough, however it is useful.
Imagine an “anchor” introducing videos to you creating a 30 minute program – the melding of voice over (audio cast) and these videos, a sort of “best of the web video” program. If I were to make one, it might focus on politics, environment and technology. You could download it daily and watch it at your leasure on your desktop, or portable video playing device.