Comments on: Google Gains Pay For YouTube

By: YouTube AdSense or Add Snore « GigaOM

YouTube AdSense or Add Snore « GigaOM — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:41:37 +0000

[...] be such a big deal, but it really is not. In fact, it is not quite smart, and shows that Google is still struggling to figure out how to make money from its YouTube acquisition. And that doesn’t change with [...]

By: Holy Mozy, EMC Moves In. There Goes The Neighborhood « GigaOM

Holy Mozy, EMC Moves In. There Goes The Neighborhood « GigaOM — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 05:49:33 +0000

[...] (CSCO) spent lavishly for Cerent, eBay (EBAY) opened its checkbook for Skype, and Google (GOOG) ponied up for YouTube. Now EMC Corp. (EMC) has reportedly bought American Fork, Utah-based Berkeley Data Systems, the [...]

By: GigaOM Google buys Postini: How high can GOOG go? «

GigaOM Google buys Postini: How high can GOOG go? « — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:22:46 +0000

[...] been perceived as one that adds overall value to the total Google value proposition. They bought YouTube, and the stock shot up. The last company that was rewarded by stock market for a buy-and-grow strategy: Cisco [...]

By: Carl Williams

Carl Williams — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:34:30 +0000

Guba is a great alternative to YouTube. We wrote a recent review of it at our company blog. You can read it at (link)

By: LordofMarketing

LordofMarketing — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:07:44 +0000

I agree with MathGeek — Comscore’s page and visitor duration methodology needs a huge ASTERISK next to it since it grossly discounts any flash-based sites. Hundreds of sites on the web are getting the short end of the stick due to Comcore’s laziness/inability to track properly.

By: MathGeek

MathGeek — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:22:40 +0000

Comscore duration data does not apply to Flash based sites that have just one page (eg Myspace Video, Additcting Clips, Heavy) hence the low duration time.

Page duration is capped at 2 mins per URL thus those sites are grossly discounted.

By: John

John — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:53:36 +0000

Stats are from comScore. Just validated them.

By: Aleem Bawany

Aleem Bawany — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:14:42 +0000

Did the YouTube deal pay for itself?

Interesting point, though potentially misleading. The deal simply didn't pay for itself. Google is a publicly owned company and as such the shareholders paid for YouTube. Google was valued at $X. YouTube's value to Google was priced at $Y. Google acquired YouTube and the new stock price became $X + $Y.

That's how mergers and acquisitions (should) work.

By: fry guy

fry guy — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:07:26 +0000

I know for a fact that Heavy.com has at least 20 minutes per average visitor session (so says Nielsen). Where those stats in that graph from?

By: Charlie Sierra

Charlie Sierra — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:02:58 +0000

the “completion of the merger” is always in the future

when exactly depends on the vacation schedules of the lawyers involved.

By: Garett Rogers

Garett Rogers — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:39:07 +0000

Om,
Thanks for your response. Maybe I’m reading that wrong, but doesn’t it sound like they were given “x” amount of shares based on the 30 days ending two days before the acquisition? In other words the average closing price of shares between Sept. 7th and Oct. 7th? Or is the “completion of the merger” sometime in the future?

By: chakpak bollywood movies

chakpak bollywood movies — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:59:54 +0000

Lets see if the gains can sustain the copyright lawsuits

By: ?

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:45:23 +0000

What are indemnification obligations of YouTube? Any idea? Thanks.

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:25:26 +0000

Garett,

this is from the SEC filings…

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement…the number of shares of [Google] Common Stock to be issued in the merger will be based on the thirty day average closing price ending two trading days prior to the completion of the merger. A portion of the consideration will be placed in escrow to satisfy certain indemnification obligations of YouTube and its stockholders described in the Merger Agreement.

By: Garett Rogers

Garett Rogers — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:07:36 +0000

haven’t they actually paid more for YouTube now that stock prices have gone up? (since Google purchased YouTube with shares)

By: Chetan

Chetan — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:54:29 +0000

Vishal:

Internet Analyst, Henry Blodget said,
“Settle on basic deal terms and a provisional price, leak details so the market has a couple of days to chew on the idea, see how the stock reacts, neutralize the market’s biggest concern (lawsuits) by announcing a distribution pact with the main guy who might sue you, fix the price, rubber-stamp the press release, and go”