
Despite the fact that 2006 isn't technically over yet, and the fact that YouTube was actually founded in 2005, TIME Magazine has dubbed the video sharing site
the best invention of 2006. And you know what? I agree. YouTube detractors have a lot of fodder for their criticisms, and YouTube is far from a perfect product or a perfect company, but in one fell swoop the company did what much bigger companies have been trying, and failing, to do for more than a decade: It brought video to the web. Now wait a second, I'm not saying that the web was videoless before that. I don't know when the first video went on the web (if anybody does, I'd love to know what it was), but it was probably about 15 years ago. But YouTube made web video truly ubiquitous. Two years ago if you saw a video on the web, you knew that, with few exceptions, its creator had made a significant investment of time, money, technology, or all three. Now literally anyone with enough cash for a nice cell phone or a cheap digital video camera or video capture card can put video on the web with just a few clicks, and--the is the kicker--for free. YouTube did that. If YouTube hadn't come along, someone else would have shortly and the web video revolution would still be upon us, but the history books never remember the guy who comes along and says, "well I could have done that."
The TIME article cites the confluence of three "revolutions" that YouTube's founders, Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, stumbled into as being integral to its success: Cheap video production tools (the aforementioned cell phones and cheap, if not free, editing software), the ubiquitous buzzword Web 2.0, i.e. the social web "exemplified by sites like MySpace, Wikipedia, Flickr and Digg-hybrids," and the cultural revolution of customers "impatient with the mainstream media." On top of those factors and Chen, Hurley, and Karim's epic luck, I think two other factors deserve top billing: Broadband and Macromedia/Adobe. The lack of bandwidth and the lack of a browser-embedded video player that "just works" limited the success of YouTube's predecessors, and broadband finally fulfilling its promises--or some of them at least--and Flash getting robust video support and finding its way into 97-point-something percent of Americans' web browsers were integral to YouTube's success.
At any rate, congrats to YouTube for this deserved accolade (do you think they get a trophy or something?). And if you're into inventions of all kinds, TIME's
Best Inventions 2006 is a great read.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-07-2006 @ 8:05PM
jr said...
Yep, Screw that vaccine for cervical cancer, YouTube has over 80,000 cat videos!
Sorry, YouTube is nice and all, but let's not lose perspective.
Reply
11-07-2006 @ 8:23PM
Qwfwq said...
And it wasn't "invented" in 2006.
These lists are a waste of time.
Reply
11-08-2006 @ 6:30AM
gdfgdfgdfg said...
to even call youtube an "invention" is absurd. the technology was all there. it was only put together by these guys. and the way it was put together was in no way especially original.
they may deserve the "most profitable company with a completely obvious product that still earns huge amounts of cash 2006"-award.
Reply
11-08-2006 @ 8:45AM
johnnyg0 said...
Sayingn that video sharing on the web was invented by YouTube in 2006 is like saying Apple invented the Mp3 player in 2001. Its what many people think because those product we're the first to reach mass recognition, this is what they should be remembered because there are not inventions. If a huge publication like Time doesn't investigate more on soft topics like that, what do they do when they talk about harder topics like war?
Reply
11-08-2006 @ 9:07AM
Jordan Running said...
johnnyg0: Nobody said YouTube invented video sharing on the web. They're saying that the YouTube guys invented YouTube.
Reply
11-08-2006 @ 10:04AM
tpp said...
YouTube is an invention just as much as any evolutionary service is. There's NOTHING new on that service. Everything it does has been done before by someone else.
It may do things much better than anyone before them in the same space, but that certainly doesn't make it the best INVENTION of 2006 (as others have said, it wasn't even "invented" in 2006). It may be the best social media SERVICE of 2006. I wouldn't argue with that, but an invention? No way.
Reply
11-08-2006 @ 9:15PM
epobirs said...
YouTube simply doesn't meet the definition of 'invention.' It is a winning implementation of things already long in the public view.
If they want to honor YouTube, thats fine. But it should be done in a rational manner. It is ridiculous that the inventors of the cervical cancer vaccine should be categorised with something so frivolous as YouTube.
Reply