it’s official: google buys youtube

As has been reported here and elsewhere, rumors have been flying about suggesting that web services company Google would acquire video-sharing site YouTube for $1.6bn or thereabouts. Confirmation arrived today that the buyout will indeed be taking place, the price being $1.65bn in Google stock (currently $429/share, up $8.50). Google outmaneuvered the likes of Microsoft, Yahoo!, and media conglomerates Viacom and The News Corporation (the new owner of social networking site MySpace) for the privilege.

An official press release from Google regarding the deal is available here. It reveals that YouTube will remain a separate brand, at least for now, rather than being folded into the Google Video project. YouTube CEO Chad Hurley had this to say today:

“Our community has played a vital role in changing the way that people consume media, creating a new clip culture. By joining forces with Google, we can benefit from its global reach and technology leadership to deliver a more comprehensive entertainment experience for our users and to create new opportunities for our partners. I’m confident that with this partnership we’ll have the flexibility and resources needed to pursue our goal of building the next-generation platform for serving media worldwide.”

Also notable are three agreements signed today between YouTube and content companies CBS, Sony BMG, and Universal Music Group (press releases here, here, and here) to provide their content to YouTube. They should at least begin to legitimize the site, which has become a repository for all sorts of troublesome material–copyrighted works used without permission of their authors, mostly. The solution to the overall problem is less clear, though; ideally, Google will pay some small fee to these companies to license the copyrighted works for each instance, but the bother involved in tabulating that may make it untenable.

So, Google buys YouTube. What do we, the users, care about it? Not much, really. The money will work differently, Google Video will disappear (will anyone miss it, really?), and YouTube’s technology can only get better with the expertise of those brainy Google engineers, but everything should stay largely as it is. At least until it changes.

–D. S. W.

north korean nuclear test successful

The details are still coming in, but The Associated Press is reporting that the North Korean government has issued a statement saying that it has successfully completed its first nuclear weapons test without incident–that is, they’re all still alive for the time being–just under two hours ago at 9:36 p.m. EDT. Stay tuned for updates.

Update 12:38 a.m.: The full text of the announcement is here, and the AP article linked above has been updated with a large amount of new information, including an off-the-record confirmation from South Korea of a 3.6-magnitude tremor at the time of the test. Oh dear. The White House is taking the news “seriously,” the Japanese are waiting for verification, and the North Korean government is proclaiming it “a historic event” and “a great leap forward” reflective of a popular desire to have “powerful self-reliant defense capability.” There’s also something about it being the start of “peace and stability” in the region. See an NYT article with historical context here, and try to avoid panicking.

–D. S. W.

review: extras – series two, episode four

It isn’t the jokes, or the appearances of various guest stars, or the opportunity to see (yet again) Andy waver uneasily under the burden of acute embarrasment. No, the best thing about this week’s episode is Chris Martin’s inspired rendition of the Extras end title theme, “Tea for the Tillerman,” with Ricky Gervais on backup vocals. It lasts only fifteen seconds or so, but it is easily the most unique and interesting piece of this sub-par installment. From the promise of the second episode to this nadir of comedic achievement, it’s been quite a fall. What happened?

Things start off promisingly enough, with rock star Chris Martin spoofing himself as a hopelessly self-important promoter of his band’s “The Greatest Hits” album, landing himself, over Andy’s objections, a ludicrous starring role on Andy’s sitcom. After the performance, which we have the pleasure of watching, he disappears from the episode, which switches over to a tedious story about Andy and Maggie’s trip to the BAFTAs (he’s been nominated, you see) with Stephen Merchant’s doltish agent character in tow.

Maggie, whose lack of prudence usually proves endearing, is simply grating here as we are forced to watch (repeatedly) as her indiscretions humiliate Andy, much to his misfortune. Stephen Fry pops up briefly for an amusing aside, as does Ronnie Corbett–not that I really know who he is beyond his being the butt of many jokes on the program–and his affinity for snorting fine white powder…in the restroom.

We end with a shockingly indignant denouncement of Andy by a woman whom he formerly dated, and while it certainly seem like it ought to be funny in light of other events, I found it more depressing than anything else; her criticisms of him were, in the end, more or less accurate (though certainly absurd). Cut to credits, then to a tasteless coda. Fin.

Next Week: Hope is not lost, as the great Sir Ian McKellen comes for a visit. If anyone can stop the decline, it shall be he.

–D. S. W.

google to buy youtube?

Does the silence on the Intel-Nvidia buyout rumors getting you down? Fear not, for the Wall Street Journal reports today (subscription required, though not for today) that web behemoth Google is in talks to buy the insanely popular video-sharing site YouTube for $1.6bn, though “discussions are still at a sensitive stage and could well break off” according to the article’s unnamed source.

If it goes through, YouTube would ostensibly merge with Google’s own site Google Video, creating an entity that should be untouchable in terms of market share. Making money is another thing, though, as YouTube is hemorrhaging funds at an alarming rate without a clear model for sustaining itself for the future. Perhaps a jolt from Google’s excellent AdSense service would do the trick?

In any case, the acquisition would only further cement Google’s dominance in virtually every area of the Interweb (yes, I know that isn’t a word). Google is also better positioned to deal with the inevitable lawsuits over the growing amount of copyrighted material available on YouTube (television programs and music videos especially). But don’t hold your breath. And don’t tell Mark Cuban.

–D. S. W.

trailers, or how to spend your free time

Today, ladies and gentlemen, I have for you an hors d’oeuvre tray of tantalizing delicacies from to sample. First, Christopher Guest’s upcoming mockumentary For Your Consideration, which features longtime collaborator Eugene Levy and a diverse ensemble of talent both new and old. Ricky Gervais (!) is in there as well. The trailer is good for a few chuckles, sketching out the zany plot which depicts the making of an independent film that is afflicted suddently with Oscar “buzz.” How exciting (at least, I think so). See that here.

Next, director Ed Zwick’s drama Blood Diamond, whose trailer is worth a viewing if only to listen to star Leonardo DiCaprio’s patently ridiculous South African accent. He’s really trying much too hard. Apparently, the movie expects us to believe that the struggle to control an ultra-rare pink diamond is reason enough for two hours of running, shouting, and exploding. Poor Djimon Hounsou’s talents are being wasted here, by the looks of things. Decide for yourself here.

Finally, there’s the odd one of the bunch, “historical adaptation” The Nativity Story. Aside from a cryptic teaser that showed us no actual footage, little was known about the film until the full trailer’s release yesterday. Having watched it now, I can only say: what a disappointment. Looking not remotely cinematic–more like a poorly-lit home movie, in fact–it appears to be a completely conventional depiction of the events surrounding Christ’s birth as depicted in Matthew. In short, it’s boring.

Keisha Castle-Hughes, best known as the youngest-ever Best Actress nominee (for Whale Rider), fills in as Mary and Oscar Isaac (of Syriana) for Joseph, while Ciaran Hinds and Shohreh Agdashloo, both capable actors, provide supporting roles (as Herod and, uh, someone else). Notice the message at the end of the trailer: New Line is clearly going after the church groups that helped make The Passion such an outsized success. But don’t take my word for it; the trailer, such as it is, can be found here.

–D. S. W.

intel mulling nvidia buyout?

Yes, you read that right. Graphics maker Nvidia’s stock price soared 8 percent today amid on a report by Reuters that chip giant Intel was preparing a buyout of the company, the culmination of months of rumors that began with Intel rival AMD’s purchase of Nvidia competitor ATI last July. An analyst from brokerage firm vFinance Investments was even so bold as to suggest that the deal would go down “tonight.” As in, right now. I can just imagine them signing the blood contract, the chief executives swearing their undying loyalty to one another and agreeing to swap wives sometime.

But seriously, this is all very, very specious, as the article notes that Intel has no clear incentive for this move considering that it already has a brisk business making and selling its own integrated graphics chipsets in Intel-branded motherboards. The price would also be astronomical compared to the AMD-ATI deal (Nvidia has a market cap of $10bn) Yowzers! So, don’t be too disappointed if you wake up tomorrow and find that this was all much ado about not much. Remember, these things happen.  It will all be fine. I promise.

–D. S. W.

jobs to headline macworld (again)

Coming as a surprise to absolutely no one, MacWorld (the publication) is reporting that Apple CEO Steve Jobs will be headlining January’s MacWorld San Francisco Conference & Expo with his customary keynote on January 9 from 9:00-11:00 a.m. PST. View the official keynote page here, and start saving up for a ticket if you want to be there in person; the privilege of basking in the glow of His Steveness’ RDF is reserved for those with deep pockets (though access to the exhibit halls for all four days can be yours for a mere $25). And oh yes, Kevin Smith will also be making some sort of presentation as well. Who invited him?

–D. S. W.

*always* low prices

The New York Times has just published a typically well-researched article on retail giant Wal-Mart’s plans to cap wages for its associates–their euphemism for “employees,” or perhaps for “minions”–and also to push more aggressively towards having a higher percentage of part-time and night workers, responding to Wall Street pressures and the company’s never-ending quest for market dominance. Though the strategy is obvious (make more money by maximizing efficiency as much as possible ), the implications are much more complex than one might think.

Unsurprisingly, there seems to be a disconnect between the company’s public statements and positions and the realities of their implementation. Consider spokeswoman Sarah Clark’s infuriating non-statement, calling the changes “a productivity improvement through which we will improve the shopping experience for our customers and make Wal-Mart a better place to work for our associates.” Bravo, Ms. Clark, for telling us absolutely nothing while putting a “happy face” on the new policies. It’s nearly disgusting, and even more so when examining reports from employees affected by them.

Though Wal-Mart denies forcing out senior employees to make way for cheaper, younger ones, the article cites cases of zealous managers denying requests for schedule accommodations–to avoid, for instance, having to work in the middle of the night–and the comments of E.V.P. of HR M. Susan Chambers in a confidential memo, which included the statement, “Given the impact of tenure on wages and benefits, the cost of an associate with 7 years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an associate with 1 year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity.”

As an exemplification of utilitarianism, the implied philosophy is perfect, and it is naive to think that it is not involved in these new policies. I argue, then that when thinking of its uses in a corporation responsible, at least to some degree, for the well-being of its employees, it is an unqualified disaster. Her figures are not the issue here; itis certainly the case that senior employees cost more, even significantly so. But to use that as justification for getting rid of them–or, at least, for moving in that direction–is scandalous, even unbelievable. Productivity and profits are important to a business, but there are other considerations that ought to carry at least as much weight, chief among them being the cultivation of a culture of excellence and dedication among those who work within it.

Sam Walton certainly believed that, making it one of the “three principles” on which he founded the company, and the current leadership claims to as well. So I ask, is it not worth sacrificing a bit of profit to enrich the lives of Wal-Mart employees, thereby strengthening the company as a whole? Any corporation, even one so domineering as Wal-Mart, is only as strong as its members and must look to preserving them before anything else.

Wal-Mart caters to and employs the lower classes of our society (just have a look at their “associate stories“) and the competition for entry-level jobs is sufficiently fierce to permit the sort of activity that the company is perpetrating. (The article references the fact that each opening in a new store receives “an average of seven applications,” and there are no openings visible on Wal-Mart’s website.) Employees have little choice but to live with whatever Wal-Mart executives decide, including perhaps a reported policy of “open availability,” the existence of which is supported by several anecdotes involving store managers who “demanded 24-hour availability” from their employees, and of course with a widely criticized health-care program and zero tolerance for workers’ unions.

While it is possible or even likely that the incidents related in the article are merely the result of undue pressure on managers from those above them in the hierarchy, their very occurrence is more than enough cause for alarm. In one way or another, Wal-Mart is responsible for the actions its employees take on its behalf, and something is clearly very wrong with some subset of the empire. It is quite like that quote from The Matrix: “if an employee has a problem, the company has a problem.” I believe that.

This all adds up to a portrait of a company that distinctly unwell despite stellar revenues and an admirably refined supply chain. We all want low prices, but not, I think, at the cost of supporting a set of values that are severely misaligned with what reason and a desire for good would prescribe. It is for this reason that I do not shop at Wal-Mart, that I ask those I know not to do so. That I ask you not to do so.

Note: For further reading, I highly recommend a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles written by The Los Angeles Times in 2004. View them at www.pulitzer.org by clicking on the year and then on the “National Reporting” category. The Wal-Mart website also makes for interesting reading once you get past the whited tone of the thing. Finally, PBS’ Frontline has an illuminating set of interviews with company executives and outsiders together with an hour-long documentary under the moniker “Is Wal-Mart Good For America?”

–D. S. W.

words fail me…

No, it isn’t some crazy European designer who marshaled the forces of darkness in creating the above monstrosity. Alas, it is Brooks Brothers, that supposed pillar of traditional American fashion, that hath unleashed it upon the unsuspecting masses. I’m tackling anyone I see wearing a pair: you have been warned.

–D. S. W.

review: the science of sleep

From the trailer, I was expecting something light. Something weird and off-kilter, certainly, but something in which visual whimsy and romantic optimism were the order of the day. The Science of Sleep did not deliver that, at least, not at all in the manner I was expecting. You see, my preconception of the protagonist Stephane, played with charm and authenticity by indie-cinema darling Gael Garcia Bernal, mostly derived from the film’s trailer, was of a man of vivid imagination and quick wit who would, through his cleverness, win the heart of girl-next-door Stephanie (the sensitive Charlotte Gainsbourg).

It wasn’t like that at all. Stephane is possessed of the unusual affliction of being unable to distinguish his bizarre mental constructions–dreams, that is–from his waking life, and, consequently, writer/director (ou, en français, “écriveur/réaliseur”) Michel Gondry is clearly not concerned with showing us a happy, satisfied man who just so happens to think about things differently from the rest of us. Instead, Stephane’s “gift” is largely a source of pain, frustration, and embarassment for him; only through Stephanie’s gradual understanding of his condition does the story manage to attain any hope at all.

This is not to say that the film lacks humor. In fact, it is full of that commodious resource, from co-worker Guy (the marvelously rude Alain Chabat) and his outlandish advice to Stephane’s perfectly morbid calendar project (“Disasterology”–he’s trying to be an artist) and his fanciful role as host of “Stephane TV” a memory-centric talk show…in his head. Gondry keeps us laughing so much that we might forget how serious the whole thing is; melancholy hangs over the film like a pall even through the last few minutes.

Perhaps that is why most powerful memory of the film as I write this is of Stephane yelling at Stephanie’s door, sure she is inside as a result of one of his delusions. He charges the door and is knocked back, his face cut and bloody. He picks himself up and presses against it then, face full of anguish, and slowly slides down to the floor. I could only watch in stunned silence, all thoughts of lighter moments being far, far away.

M. Gondry chooses such moments with great care, ever eager to show us Stephane, the person, and Stephanie, the object of his affections who is entranced by his often boundless enthusiasm for the childish and the trivial. He gifts her with a time machine, which in his dreams works perfectly. He repairs her stuffed horse, using “chaos theory” to make it come to life and gallop around. All of this we see through the magic of stop-motion animation; its organic realism is astonishing at times: one wonders how it is possible for anyone to conceive the contents of Stephane’s awesome dreamscapes.

Strictly speaking, The Science of Sleep is not new territory for M. Gondry, whose last film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind dwelled on much of the same romantic and, to a lesser extent, visual material. But where I found that film’s final moments strangely disaffecting (no offense intended towards its talented stars), Sleep reaches a bittersweet conclusion that I found rapturous, urgent in its cathartic evocation of deeply felt love and sorrow and far more real (despite the wanton immaterialism) in its implications for our super-human yet bewildered protagonist.

This only serves to highlight, of course, the subjectivity of any assessment of what M. Gondry accomplishes here. For me, The Science of Sleep may be the most romantic film I have ever seen, though it competes with Richard Linklater’s Before Sunset for that honor (but reminds me strongly of it at times). At the same time, it is foolish to call Sleep a “good movie,” or even one worthy of your time and money. Films like this are of a singular order, limited in appeal: considering that, I would call it genius.

–D. S. W.