Want to watch YouTube on your TV? There are plenty of devices and services that let you do that, with more on the way.

But starting next month, at least one gadget is getting its YouTube feed shut down. Syabas Technology, which makes a line of set-top boxes called “Popcorn Hour,” says Google’s (GOOG) video site has told it to remove YouTube content beginning December 2.

This one is a straight he said/he said: Syabas, via a blog post from COO Alex Limberis, says it has an agreement to use YouTube’s clips, but that YouTube had changed the terms of the agreement recently. YouTube won’t address that claim directly, but offered this statement:

Since July of 2008, YouTube’s Terms of Service has restricted implementations for televisions based on our APIs. YouTube has been in active discussions with various developers on how best to implement YouTube on set top boxes and TVs. There are several companies, however, that have deployed solutions, like video scraping technology, to circumvent the rules and violate YouTube’s Terms of Service.  Companies that have negotiated agreements to use our APIs, like TiVo, Sony, Panasonic and PS3 are not impacted.

The first-gut reaction here is to draw a parallel between this move and Hulu’s attempt to prevent video software start-up Boxee from using its stuff.

But in that case, at least, Hulu was trying to restrict access to a data stream it was making freely available to the rest of the world. Here, both sides agree that YouTube requires a contract before it will release its API to commercial partners.

So, the real question is: Did the two companies have an agreement, and what if, anything, has changed recently.

Gentlemen?

[T-shirt image courtesy of Zazzle.com.]

Wal-Mart is adding three outsiders to its sales mix, which it says will add an additional one million items to its inventory, and the company plans to add more in the future. Is this a problem for either Amazon (AMZN), which features some third-party sales, or eBay (EBAY), which offers nothing but?

Maybe one day, but not in the near future. That’s primarily because Wal-Mart is so far behind the big guys. The $1.7 billion Wal-Mart did in Web sales last year makes it the 13th biggest online store in the U.S. Chart via JP Morgan’s Imran Khan:

And even if Wal-Mart’s new partners do boost sales significantly, the ecommerce market is likely to grow even faster. Bernstein analyst Jeffrey Lindsay expects U.S. online retail to grow by $13 billion in 2010 and another $19 billion in 2011. So don’t expect to see Wal-Mart’s Web foes wiping their brows just yet.

[Image credit: PinkMoose]

Part of the magic trick will involve cutting costs. That’s hard to see play out in real time, except when we get flare-ups like YouTube’s fight with Warner Music Group (WMG) over new contract terms. The other part of the abracadabra–selling more ads on more videos, particularly “viral” hits–is easier to spot, particularly because YouTube keeps pointing it out.

For instance: Yesterday’s announcement that the site would start attaching ads to many more popular videos submitted by users and share the proceeds with the uploaders.

YouTube was typically vague about how the plan will work, but the most telling news is that it thinks it can increase the number of “partners” it shares ad revenue with from “thousands” to “tens of thousands.”

Translation: All those skateboarding dog videos you make fun of? We’re going to turn them into money machines. Just watch!

I’m going to make an educated guess and posit that for all the effort YouTube has made  to “monetize”–I hate that word, but what can you do?–its gazillions of videos, its most important revenue generator is still its homepage. YouTube’s competitors think a one-day “takeover” there may cost an advertiser as much as $500,000.

There’s not a whole lot of upside left for YouTube in the homepage, though. It’s the gateway to the world’s biggest video site, and the second-biggest search engine, and you either want to advertise on it or you don’t.

But the rest of site remains a big opportunity. YouTube can keep chasing splashy “premium content” deals like the ones it has struck with Sony (SNE), Disney (DIS) and Time Warner (TWX). And at the same time, it can try selling more of the “long tail”–basically, everything that isn’t “premium.”

YouTube’s long-tail efforts sometimes get ignored, especially when the site is compared to Hulu and its array of TV shows and movies. But YouTube executives have insisted for a while that long-tail videos will play a big role in the site’s future, and the new move underscores that.

“I think they are working [the long tail] hard but are not articulating it well,” the head of a competing Web video company told me earlier this month. “It may be because they are worried about how advertisers and agencies will view them, but it may also be that they are not revealing it all until it’s farther along.” Yesterday, YouTube gave us another peek.

CEO Eric Schmidt reiterated that position, which he’s already made a couple times this year, in an interview with the Financial Times. Though Schmidt did allow that Google (GOOG) had at least mulled the idea at one point, which will be old news to MediaMemo readers:

FT: Would you ever consider buying a newspaper; they’re cheap right now?

ES: We’ve actually looked at this and we’re trying to avoid crossing the line between the infrastructure and technology that Google provides and the content that our partners provide. There is a line and we’re trying to stay on our side it.

Hey, why does that sound familiar? Ah, that’s right.

I’m told that while Google execs have brought up the notion of snapping up distressed newspapers using its huge cash hoard within the past year, those talks have never gotten serious. It’s hard to see how they could: Google has emphatically stayed out of the content business so far, and it’s unclear why it would change direction now–and invest in a shrinking industry at the same time.

Schmidt and the FT also recovered other material that’s been out for a bit, including the search giant’s talks with the Washington Post (WPO), and presumably, the New York Times (NYT), about some kind of collaboration. In this case, Schmidt refers vaguely to “online news versions that somehow address the immediate needs of people and for which advertising works better.”

And while he was at it, Schmidt didn’t hold out hope for rekindling a  Yahoo/Google search deal. Which is good, since Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT) look like they’re close to getting something done: “…never say never in business. Carol [Bartz, Yahoo chief executive], of course, is a very, very able and strong CEO and my sense is that she’s very focused on getting Yahoo back to its former glory, which is a great project.”

Turns out the majority of those new Twitterers won’t be back in May.

So says Nielsen Online, which estimates that 60 percent of Twitter’s users leave after a month. That makes sense on a gut level to me: Twitter is easy to use, but it often takes a while to make sense, and if you’re not a professional self-promoter–or someone with a lot of friends who are already on Twitter–it may never make sense.

It’s worth noting here that Nielsen is likely overstating the churn because it is only measuring visits to the Twitter.com URL. The majority of Twitter use happens away from the site, on mobile phones and apps like Tweetdeck, and it’s theoretically possible to be an avid Twitterer but never visit Twitter.com after you sign up. I’ve asked the Twitter folks for their take on the stats and will update if they respond.

But let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the Nielsen stats are correct, or close to being correct. Is that a problem? Obviously, every Web service attracts new users who never come back after they try it out, so churn in itself isn’t a problem. The question is the rate.

The good news is that Twitter’s 40 percent retention rate is higher than it used to be. Prior to the Oprah madness of this month, Twitter’s rate was closer to 30 percent, Nielsen says.

But the measurement company argues, via a fancy chart and equation, that 40 percent retention makes it mathematically impossible for Twitter to achieve significant penetration with Internet users. The simple version is that if Twitter loses three out of five users a month, its growth will be capped at about 10 percent of the audience. Fancy version below (click chart to enlarge):

And here’s how Twitter’s retention rate compares to that of Facebook and MySpace (again, note that Facebook users and MySpace users more or less have to visit the those sites to use them, so the numbers are likely slightly skewed):

So what if Twitter really is a service that appeals to no more than 10 percent of the Internet audience? Is that such bad thing? Not at all. That’s an awfully big number.

And “retention” may end up being the wrong metric to measure a service like Twitter, anyway. See this perceptive post by Andrew Chen (thanks to OMGPOP’s Dan Porter for the link).

But a lot of the Twitter sales pitch–to investors and would-be partners like Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT)–is contingent on the service’s eventual ubiquity. The appeal of Twitter’s real-time search capabilities, for instance, is less seductive if you’re only searching what a sliver of Internet users are Tweeting about. And knowing that growth is capped could make that impressive hockey stick chart a little less so.

[Image credit: Weegee via the International Center of Photography]

Who actually made the move to drop the label’s content from the world’s biggest video site is a matter of dispute, though. Both sides are taking credit for the decision.

Here’s Warner Music (WMG)’s statement:

We are working actively to find a resolution with YouTube that would enable the return of our artists’ content to the site. Until then, we simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide.”

But a person familiar with the situation tells me that the two companies were close to an agreement until recently, when Warner changed its terms. In response, Google (GOOG) made the move to yank the label’s content.

Google’s blog post about the matter is more oblique. But note that it doesn’t say it is taking the music down at Warner’s request:

Sometimes, if we can’t reach acceptable business terms, we must part ways with successful partners. For example, you may notice videos that contain music owned by Warner Music Group being blocked from the site.”

As I explained yesterday, music videos are some of the most popular content on YouTube. But the videos are also money losers for the video site because it has to pay the labels each time someone views a clip, regardless of whether it’s generating any revenue. YouTube’s contracts with all of the the big labels–in addition to Warner, it has pacts with Sony (SNE), Universal Music Group and EMI–are set to expire in the near future, so there are multiple games of chicken to watch here.

Meanwhile, taking down an entire music company’s catalog can take quite a while, which means that if you head to YouTube right now, you can still find plenty of Warner stuff  there–like the Madonna channel, which has golden oldies like this one:

The only real surprise here is that the BlogHer founders–Lisa Stone, Elisa Camahort Page and Jory Des Jardins–don’t blame the economy for the cuts. Rather, they say that they have to reduce payments because they’re so successful:

When BlogHer’s network was created in 2006, we began with 35 blogs, a few advertisers and a small number of staff members to sell and manage the entire network. Today, BlogHer’s network is more than 2,500 blogs strong, and we’re working with dozens of advertisers each quarter. We have had to grow our technology infrastructure and staff dramatically to keep pace with network growth. Because many of these costs are fixed, expanding our network to compete for Fortune 500 advertisers has been a major investment.”

BlogHer was founded in 2005, and has received funding from Venrock, the Rockefeller family’s VC arm, and Peacock Equity, the JV between GE’s (GE) NBC and GE Commercial Finance.

Here’s the full text of the email from the BlogHer founders to their blog partners:

December 10, 2008
Hi everyone,

Elisa, Jory and Lisa