I'm not sure I'd call Google's video product an open market representation. Sure content owners are allowed to set their own prices, but is that all that is necessary to ensure an open market?
For an open market to exist don't we need the demand side to factor into the pricing?
Also, Google is it's own form of walled garden. Proprietary, non-portable format with Google DRM. There is nothing open about that.
The demand side does factor into the pricing - it buys or doesn't buy. Presumably, sellers, if they're rational, will adjust prices to max revenues based on that behavior.
I take your point about proprietary format = walled gdn. My point was about business model walls.
It's not a walled garden in the sense that you can choose no DRM if you're a seller. If DRM is more costly than otherwise, most content providers will choose no DRM.
Do keep us posted on how the Apple vs Google Video data points correlate or not with what your economics tells you to expect.
It could be the battle of Apple vs Bubblegen, in a sense.
I'm still dense about what economics are leading to Apple's success in the short term? Is it just an aggregrator and deconstructor?
And if so will this give it some long term viability in the Media 2.0 landscape, understanding that the missing parts of a media 2.0 strategy, peer/social, walled garden, etc., may hold it back. But then again who makes better tools for peer produced content(the new GarageBand podcasting studio, iLife), even if they are not harnessing them within iTunes (well again except for podcasts.)
In other words, it seems like Apple is not as oblivious to Media 2.0 strategies as one might fear.
Obviously, I don't really know WTF I'm talking about, but I'm trying to sort it out.