|
| Headline | Google bought YouTube |
|
Page:
[1] |
| Author | Comment |
Klausi
Oct-11-2006, 05:09 GMT
IP:
Germany
 | Making 1,65 Billion Dollars with a good idea as newcomers within 18 months - respect!
I like such stories and that they still can happen. |
| | |
Bodo
Oct-11-2006, 10:47 GMT
IP:
Austria
 | Well, I personaly do not see the value of 1,65 Billion $ in Youtube and it´s either illegal distributed copyrighted material (thats why we for example like it) or some joke videos. Until today youtube has not made any money (and I really wonder who was paying all the traffic...)
How will google make money out of it? - Playing a lot of advertisement before every video which will destroy all the joy.
I think this site was extremely overpaid, just because they - google - have the money (and we see, they have too much money... if they are from Europe they would buy 2 or 3 Formula 1 Teams. |
| | |
Klausi
Oct-11-2006, 18:17 GMT
IP:
Germany
| Yes Bodo, maybe you are right. I read they (YouTube) have a market-share (Free Video Loading) of about 50 percent. 100 Million visitors per day.
If it turns out to be a flop for google, I would admire those inventors even more. |
| | |
Bodo
Oct-11-2006, 19:28 GMT
IP:
Austria
| 100 Million visitors per day sounded a little bit too much - I checked the articles and it says the serve 100 million videos per day.
In June they had 20 million visitors (during that month)..so about 666 thousand visitors per day.
http://mashable.com/2006/07/17/youtube-hits-1-mill
ion-videos-per-day/
This German article is about myspace.com
http://www.welt.de/data/2006/07/13/956825.html
Myspace.com has the most visitors ba far now (even more than google or yahoo) - and Rupert Murdoch bought it for 560 Million Dollars.
At the end the article says that last year the page ´only´ had a volume of 13 Million$ (so I wonder when Murdoch will get back his 560 millions...in the year 2100 or when?)
|
| | |
Bodo
Oct-11-2006, 21:04 GMT
IP:
Austria
| By that way - I am thinking of selling the http://www.paul-simon.info website. First offer should be around 50 million Dollars (maybe paulsimon.com is interested?) |
| | |
Bodo
Oct-11-2006, 21:08 GMT
IP:
Austria
| It is interesting what Steve Ballmer (Microsoft) said. If youtube is the future of TV then the price is okay, if thats not the reason, it is not worth a lot.
|
| | |
Scaaty
Oct-11-2006, 23:45 GMT
IP:
Ireland
 | Only sell if you can stay in control, Bodo otherwise it won´t be worth anything. Wonder what type of advertising would be aimed at the average PS fan? |
| | |
matthewsemple
Oct-12-2006, 21:25 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom
 | The idea of putting daft home videos and bootlegged music promos is not worth however many billions of dollars.
The value of YouTube lies in the technology. All those products like Real Player and Windows Media Player require you to install a client and the files need loads of memory so you get that really annoying buffering.
YouTube on the other hand is really quick and runs straight from your browser. I reckon that is why they bought it. |
| | |
Bodo
Oct-12-2006, 21:37 GMT
IP:
Austria
| No Matthew, the technology is not worth a lot. What 2 people can programm can be done by a team of let´s say 20 people easely. What they programmed is worth, let´s say 50.000 Dollars if you pay them very good.
But google already has that technology.
I guess google really thinks that youtube is the future of TV, that one day people will watch their movies and TV soaps and news on Youtube - at the time they want. And kids watch Youtube instead of MTV.
But I do not think that this will happen. It will be on many different sites if ever -because turning on a TV and zapping trough the channels is easier (and maybe more relaxing) than choosing your own programm and news and clips all the time.
IMO Youtube is just ´in´ at the moment, like rollerskating was for a few years in the 80´s. Also ICQ was really ´in´ a few years ago, and now it is ´skype´ |
| | |
matthewsemple
Oct-14-2006, 21:11 GMT
IP:
United Kingdom
| Well I agree I don´t think it is the future of TV either. If the technology is not worth much either, one wonders why they paid all that money.
Would have been better spent on donating to charity like Bill Gates has been doing with his Microsoft money. I recently heard that he has paid $250 million for vaccinations against malaria in Africa. |
| | |
Bodo
Oct-16-2006, 08:45 GMT
IP:
Austria
| You know - Microsoft normaly is the first company which buys everything. So you might also wonder why the haven´t been interested in Youtube...
So they paid 1.65 billion $ to these guys (although they only got a stock from google, I am sure they can not sell them now and get the 1.65 billions in cash) - but google also said that they have made deals with Warner, Sony and some TV stations. No one knows how much they paid to all these companies to make the millions of videos on Youtube legal. And does, for example Paul Simon not own the rights of his material - simply to say: No, I do not want my African concert videos on Youtube for free?
Whatever, for me personaly the quality of a 320*240 pixel video in low sound quality is not very interesting - I really think that this is not the future of TV (that is HDTV, with 12-15 GB movies, and no one can handle so much traffic at the moment) |
| | |
Klausi
Oct-17-2006, 08:36 GMT
IP:
Germany
| Yes Bodo, I think so too. I won`t watch a film on my PC, where I have to sit properly and write a lot.
And I would not write and handle a lot on my easy chair in the living room.
I am waiting to convert my VHS-tapes into DVD. But what system? This is important. If the industry will not decide soon, we will have so much software, that the question of "HDTV" or "blueray" is not relevant anylonger and we will stay with 4 Gigabytes/DVD.
The situation is different from 30 years ago. The three video-systems were the first ones (Betamax and Video 2000 are gone long ago). It only was the software that helped VHS, but there had to be one winner if you wanted to watch your own material.
You can see what can happen looking at the Laser-disc - a total flop.
As was DAT (audio), although technically also a very good system. |
| | |
|
Page:
[1]
|