Amazing how out-of-whack headlines are from the article copy even on sites like ATD. This is from the article:

> As a result, if Twitter continues to grow into the de facto public social network, it could easily start taking millions (and perhaps billions) of valuable ad dollars from YouTube.

So "could" in the copy changes to "is going to" in the headline, while "millions (and perhaps billions)" changes to "a billion dollars".

I'm guessing the headline writer knew something the writer didn't. I wish there were a way for me to take back my pageviews from sites with wilfully misleading headlines like these.

There's a funny Ali G clip, where he's interviewing Sam Donaldson about the media and asks if it's ok to title headlines "WAR BEGINS.... with a w"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H6OULO5R4Y

It's funny thinking back well before the internet how physical headlines were used to capture people's attention as they walked by a newsstand.

Respect.

I don't buy the logic. If embedding is such a big deal then why does nearly every discussion forum allow you to embed youtube videos but not tweets? It's got nothing to do with who the community thinks could make ad money on it, it's all about the particular medium. Further, while youtube is full of content, twitter has a much higher meta-content volume. Good for 'news' perhaps, not so much for discussion forums outside of gossip.

It's pretty easy to embed tweets nearly everywhere

I don't think so, not as a discussion site participant. None of the sites I use allow it.

But the real point is people don't do it that often even when they can. Twitter is rarely a direct source of content. From what I've seen Vimeo and Soundcloud have a better shot at this than Twitter, even though YouTube has them both both beat on embedding frequency for their respective content.

As a non-Twitter user, I had always wondered how they were going to be generating long-term revenue. The possibilities for real-time interaction with TV audiences via a hashtag/tweet on a TV program sounds pretty enticing to me. It will be interesting to see how YouTube responds in the next 6 months.

Not that I strongly disagree with the authors ideas of how Twitter could take on Youtube, but it is worthwhile to emphasize that Twitter's S-1 filing indicate no intention to do so.

"How I think Twitter Could Take a Billion Dollars From YouTube," would be a far less misleading headline.

Most of the money on Youtube is from content providers who are paid by Google. (Like me)

Twitter doesn't have revenue to share. Without revenue to share people (like me) aren't going to move to Twitter for video.

Vevo isn't moving. iJustine isn't moving. ShayTards isn't moving. BBC isn't moving. Jenna Marbles isn't moving.

That's a lot of Youtube that won't move.

The people who make random commentaries and upload to be famous aren't Ad/Brand safe and might be happier on Twitter, but they won't make money and they won't bring money.