Comments on: YouTube, Google … fuggedaboutit

By: Bandwidth Crisis » Blog Archive » Whoa There: Video Views to Pass Searches?

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:41:22 +0000

[...] progress that’s been (or not been) made. My boss, Om Malik, who bet against the deal, said he’d drop 40 pounds if the rumors came true, something Messrs. Chad and Steve love to tease him about when they’re [...]

By: 10 New New Secret Questions « GigaOM

10 New New Secret Questions « GigaOM — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:38:00 +0000

[...] many pounds have you lost since YouTube got acquired and you had to eat crow? 22 (18 to go.) Share This | Sphere | Print Posts | Topic: Random [...]

By: Whoa There: Video Views to Pass Searches? « NewTeeVee

Whoa There: Video Views to Pass Searches? « NewTeeVee — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:11:47 +0000

[...] that’s been (or not been) made. My boss, Om Malik, who bet against the deal, said he’d drop 40 pounds if the rumors came true, something Messrs. Chad and Steve love to tease him about when [...]

By: Jay Gould’s Blog » Response to Cuban’s Oscars.com vs Youtube.com Post

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:06:29 +0000

[...] the saying goes, too little too late… but the cost would have been $1.65 billion to capture 100% of the YouTube views of Oscar Videos. Today the best way would be to redirect [...]

By: Debasish

Debasish — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:22:54 +0000

Umm… Om?

What do you say now?

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:15:18 +0000

Done deal folks. Better luck next time.

By: hrm

hrm — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:32:20 +0000

Amit – from your #3 point – in the beginning YouTube did run Google ads but that stopped a while ago. The main source of ads currently is Doubleclick. It’s not clear why the Google ads stopped – maybe the hefty % of video that is obviously in copyright violation was the reason. In fact, the same reason why ads have not showed up on Google Video.

By: alan

alan — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:25:20 +0000

Google has been a rumoured suitor for a while, and the rumoured price has been $1 - $2bn for months now.

Question is - if you have Google Video already, why spend $1.6bn rather than build it yourself?

What does that say about Google capability, despite Google having, according to The Economist this week, a recruiting machine that scours the Earth for the brightest and best?

Still, it is only a Rumour ;)

By: Your Mama

Your Mama — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:35:08 +0000

It sounds like the stupid rumor from two weeks ago that Facebook was being sold to Yahoo for about the same price.

Every two weeks a stupid rumor will pop up… but really, earnings are almost here so there is no chance of an acquisition just infront of earnings.

STUPID.

By: Amit Chowdhry

Amit Chowdhry — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:38:04 +0000

Hi Mr. Malik, Just wanted to let you know that I agreed with you on this post for the following reasons:

1.) First of all is the obvious: $1.6 billion is a lot of money. Even if Google’s market cap is over $100 billion, why should they spend so much on acquiring a company and then dealing with the courts and lawyer fees after acquiring it when they already have the technology available. Have we all forgotten about Google Video? 2.) Apple and Google are partnered now. What does Apple and Google have in common? They charge $1.99 for videos!! YouTube is completely for free. Buying YouTube would not help ripen the relationship Google and Apple are developing (like my “ripen” pun?). 3.) How does YouTube currently make money? Three ways. First there is sponsored channels such as Paris Hilton’s and NBC’s. Second there is funding coming in from VC firm, Sequoia Capital. Third of all, they’re depending on Google Ads to make money, but in this same process, Google is making a lot more money from their Adwords program generated by YouTube hits and clicks. 4.) If Google buys YouTube and attempts to converge it with their own business and it flops, think about how much money Google loses. Right now the YouTube model works for them and Google is making money already from their site. However, YouTube can always threaten to side with other advertising programs and switch away from Google Ads to possibly speed up talks (if they are actually talking right now).

By: Nick Hawkins

Nick Hawkins — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 15:52:23 +0000

I’m still caught up in this whole “I don’t need a business plan to make money” Web 2.0 thing. Now, if Google had some sort of targeted ad system to analyze the video and give matching ads (I don’t know how you’d do this and think it’s not possible). But even then I’m just pulling this out of my ass…

By: Thomas M Thurston

Thomas M Thurston — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:52:47 +0000

I think this is just the start.. Watch the wave move to China and I bet Cool8.tv is next

By: Vidizer

Vidizer — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:22:41 +0000

I voted “weekend is here”. Yet, it definitely makes sense for Google to buy Youtube. Their Google Video service is lagging too far behind for anyone’s comfort.

By: Vidize.com

Vidize.com — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:22:20 +0000

Google buys Youtube?…

Yahoo bought Jumpcut, it makes sense that Google want to expand further in that space as well. They recently put video on their homepage to promote their Google Video service. Traffic stats indicate it lags behind Youtube. Now, TechCrunch posts that th…

By: Simon Cast

Simon Cast — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 08:12:20 +0000

A partnership is more likely. An agreement to use Google’s Advertising platform would follow the company’s current strategy of form partnerships that utilise the company’s platforms.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:25:19 +0000

I don't know if anyone at Google have read Robert Kiyosaki but YouTube doesn't look like an asset at all. Did they come up with some wicked business model noone else did? If not, buying YouTube would bring GOOG down (if stock markets were reasonable anyway).