It seems odd to say, but “American Idol,” “Heroes” and the rest of the prime-time lineup have many millions of fans who don’t get the same satisfaction from YouTube (even though many of them turn to YouTube for other entertainment). So not only did Hulu have something people wanted, it had a brand promise that was clear and distinctive: Hulu is where you go for network TV. That’s different from YouTube, which is where you go to watch the biggest collection of video that isn’t on TV. Hulu, in effect, is Amazon.com to YouTube’s eBay.

I’m not so sure.  I’d say it *was* disruptive, since prior to Hulu there was no way to quickly and legitimately (sorry bit torrent) and *easily* (watching 5 minute clips on daily motion?  No thanks) watch full length clips of network TV.  You can pooh-pooh network television all you want with respect to its quality, or where its trajectory is in the overall decline against online media, but facts are that millions of people Still Watch Television.  Much of it is good.  Some of it is really good.

And to all my Canadian and European bretheren who have never tried it, believe me when I say that it is wrapped up in one gloriously slick package.

Even better?  Its totally free.  Yes, its ad supported so its not really “FREE!”, but its free enough that it could allow any reasonably minded person to meaningfully cancel their cable bill.  In a real way, it could even save you money.

In my mind, the broadcast networks always held the keys in this regard, because they were always so tight-fisted with the licensing of their content.  And rightly so.  With Hulu they’ve got a slam dunk.  Now, there’s always time to still screw things up, but until they do (start suing their users, for example), everyone should enjoy their free (and generally ad-limited) ride with gusto.  Revenue?  Revenue is an issue for another post, children. :)

Some news today on the tragic suicide of a young man captured on Justin.tv — Justin.tv being a tad different than, say, YouTube, as its one of those video services which streams content live.  That is to say, he committed suicide on “live” internet-streaming video.

The loss of a young life is always regrettable.  I think the real bit of news is merely that it may have been the first time it was captured in this way.  As new media evolves, and as a newer generation of users become comfortable with capturing every facet of their life permanently (as debatable as that is), suicide captured in the medium of the day is inevitable.

As is the birth of life (cue: Robert Scoble Some other dude twittering the birth of his child).  And the suffering of people in life.

The “new” web is more than the spectacle of the crushingly banal or the bruisingly idiotic, and like it or lump it, it will probably catalogue the depth and breadth of the human experience in a way that’s never been done before.

And yes.  That probably means sometime, incredibly and regrettably, someone will probably be murdered in a live-streamed broadcast as well.

And yes.  It probably also means one day it will be so banal it won’t be reported as a television worthy (or blog-worthy) event either.