Comments on: YouTube Infrastructure Costs Vastly Overestimated: Report http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:52:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Open Source mobile edition http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/#comment-214345 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:18:14 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=54601#comment-214345 [...] charging people? Probably because their cost structure is out of line. YouTube, thanks to Google, has its costs under control. Until News Corp. can deliver costs close to that Hulu can't compete. So they blame you instead. [...]

]]> By: Marketing when you couldn’t give it away for free | danielpatricio.com http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/#comment-214344 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:40:04 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=54601#comment-214344 [...] most recently Youtube. Youtube which they paid $1.6 billion amount for and supposedly loses them 415 million a year despite being one of the top 10 visited websites in the [...]

]]> By: RampRate：Youtube今年的亏损可能仅有1.8亿美元 &raquo 谷奥——探寻谷歌的奥秘 (http://google.org.cn) http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/#comment-214343 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:18:36 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=54601#comment-214343 [...] gigaom 本站文章除注明转载外，均为本站原创编译 [...]

]]> By: les madras http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/#comment-214342 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:14:46 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=54601#comment-214342 either way, google’s acquistion of youtube really stalled online video monetization. they dont innovate but shove the same old overlays. and nobody else can, since there is very few players left.

prior to the acquisition fox had twice the market share as youtube. now it has a tenth. although the #2 player.

]]> By: Dario Salvelli’s Blog » Blog Archive » Feedmastering #149 http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/#comment-214341 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:10:40 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=54601#comment-214341 [...] mentre YouTube aggiunge Wonder Wheel, la stessa funzioen di Google News, gira un report riguardo i costi dell’infrastruttura di YouTube che sarebbero un po’ [...]

]]> By: David Robins http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/#comment-214340 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:10:43 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=54601#comment-214340 The biggest difference between the two analysis is the bandwidth cost. Credit Suisse estimate is almost ten fold more than RampRate. The truth is somewhere in between. From my own experience at binfire.com, $48.7M annual cost for bandwidth for a site like youtube seems way too low!even if they use Google clout to negotiate for better terms.
BTW I love your blog!

]]> By: David Robins http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/#comment-214339 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:42:13 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=54601#comment-214339 The biggest difference between the two analysis is the bandwidth cost. Credit Suisse estimate is almost ten fold more than RampRate. The truth is somewhere in between. From my own experience at binfire.com, $48.7M annual cost for bandwidth for a site like youtube seems way too low!even if they use Google clout to negotiate for better terms.

]]> By: rohit http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/#comment-214338 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:33:07 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=54601#comment-214338 Ben (CEO Fliqz) offers a much more thoughtful take on what drives these numbers….
http://www.businessinsider.com/is-youtube-doomed-2009-4
and
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=137307

]]> By: Maddy http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/#comment-214337 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:32:01 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=54601#comment-214337 If you use other people’s revenue numbers — for instance, Jefferies said $500 million — the site would actually turn a profit.

]]>