Your thoughts-Google/YouTube buyout

Stonefield schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 08:50 Uhr
Google has bought the public video sharing site, YouTube.com...

I just found this out now. Not sure how I feel about it but I guess when a corporation offers you "1600 million dollars" - That how much 1.6 billion is...., you really can't turn that down.

Looks like Google Video tanked. I guess when something get's really popular, it's fair game to the major internet companies. Hotmail was bought by Microsoft, MySpace was bought by FOX ( I believe it was ) and now Google bought YouTube. When so many browsers are pointed to these popular sites, there's no way a huge company is gonna be able to resist buying all that consumer attention. Makes sense I guess.

I wonder where this is all heading though....

Really curious on your thoughts on this and the Google/YouTube buyout.

Stan

Kommentare

RexA schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 09:35 Uhr
I'm a bit dumbfounded by the price. Seems a bit like the excesses that we saw before the dot-com crash. Hope Google hasn't done themselves in.

They must think they see ways to make a lot of money from it. I hope they don't start forcing everyone to watch ads every few cycles to make money. To break even in 10 years they need to make only an average of 150 million a year from it. That should be easy, huh?

Congrats to the guys who created it and sold it within two years for a billion-and-a-half. Their dating opportunities must have gotten way better. What do they do now, being only 20-something? Talk about peaking early. They're probably pretty smart. Hopefully their success won't kill them early.


farss schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 10:35 Uhr
Regardless of the financial lunacy what does it hold for what WE do?

Is anyone going to blow $10K just to get something decent on YouTube?
Wasn't there a post somewhere asking if RED could upload direct to YouTube?

If the average quality of what gets posted on YouTube becomes accepted as acceptable I'd be kind of worried about what the future holds for all of us here.
Which is not to dump on the idea of everyone being able to have a go, the egalitarian principal at work but sometimes that doesn't bode well when it means everything gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

Bob.
ken c schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 12:02 Uhr
A bigger challenge for all of us content producers, is that we've got to police sites like youtube and google video constantly, to make sure our copywrited commercial DVDs aren't showing up there for free download..

hmm and I'm a bit jealous since the youtube founders are 29 year old kids... grrr now why didn't I think of that concept? well the good news is there's tons of other opportunity, we've just got to figure it all out and go for it..


ken
Wes C. Attle schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 12:14 Uhr
I think it's a great investment by a smart company.

I am amazed by the price tag too. But Google's market cap increased by $4 billion on the news of their purchase for $ 1.65 billion. So the price is all relative. A couple subject related text ads per page maybe is their plan? With currently 74 million users and growing fast, Goog will make billions off it.

I don't know about the masses, but I just watch a select few amateur videos each week on YouTube. Never watch any corporate promos or copyright violated content (except Jon Stewar clips) anyway. I noticed the average quality is already getting better. That will continue when countries like the USA begin to catch up with the developed world and get real in-home broadband at 10 to 100 Mbps.

Remember, a 20-something with a cheap camcorder or webcam can often create a far more interesting or funny video than anyone in this forum could. You can do just about everything you would need with $39 "NLE's" or Vegas Studio version. I think it’s a great trend to see all sorts becoming video editors. Even if you that means you guys have to find real jobs. :-)


BrianAK schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 12:53 Uhr
I heard the number of 100 million videos watched a month. Thats amazing. Content producers may really want to think about taking advantage of these huge numbers by posting some of your own stuff there. You can make your own channel on YouTube, and theres nothing stopping you from putting a plug to your own website in the video.
Wes C. Attle schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 13:00 Uhr
Dude, it's 100 million videos PER DAY! http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=youtube+%22100+million+videos&btnG=Search+News

I agree with you.
farss schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 13:51 Uhr
The problem I see is dilution. How does the good filter to the top?

I suspect this industry could well go the way of the music industry, possibly even more so. At least musicians can and have gone back to live performances. I'd think it's harder today to get a recording contract if you're an unknown act than it was ten years ago.

Not that what I'm saying matters one iota. This was inevitable, good or bad it's happening and there's nought to be done about it. At least I can be glad I only own an old D8 camera and a web cam :)

Bob.
Konrad schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 15:37 Uhr
I find it funny many exspurts were saying just last week that YouTube would not be bought because of copyright violations. Copyright violation is not funny as it hurts all the commercial content creators. At least now there are deep pockets to go after with a class action.

YouTube did what most ISP's were not willing to do (host video). While the ISP's did not want to do it, the public wanted it and these guys figured out how to get vary rich giving the public what they wanted. Kinda like how the Hollywood pioneers got rich giving the public what they wanted. The American dream is alive and doing well in cyberspace.
Wes C. Attle schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 16:54 Uhr
"I'd think it's harder today to get a recording contract if you're an unknown act than it was ten years ago."

Actually, now independent musicians with no contracts/label are doing well selling their music through the big online music sellers. They plug MSN Music and the others during their live shows with 50 or 200 people in the crowd, word of mouth has hundreds more buying their songs. These are unknowns with small local followings. They are not making millions, but making more than they were selling CD's and T-shirts at the back of the bar. This model is good for bands and the online music sellers as the record company is out of the middle.

"I find it funny many exports were saying just last week that YouTube would not be bought because of copyright violations. "

The copyright laws have good intent, but even strong intellectual property advocates like me are probably going to evolve and force changes to those laws over time. The fact is that getting more information (and video) available to more people is good for the intellectual creator and the public at large. We just have to figure out how to find the right balance between sharing and stealing. Just like the Xerox machine drove changes to copyright laws, so will the Internet.

I think many media companies are benefiting from youtube. Those short clips do nothing but help expose their products. These videos are not full movies or TV shows. Some long clips push the limit, but I think that the content owners are finding the 74 million new viewers is good for business. I expect the legal system will play part of the role in defining the evolution of information sharing, but I really think the public's desire and corporate digital rights management innovations will have more of an influence.

VOGuy schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 17:32 Uhr
Nobody really knows what all of this means. Since we're in the video biz, though, it's important to pay attention to what's going on.

The following is probably fact however:

1) Google couldn't afford not to buy Youtube.

2) Suddenly, the Internet is an accepted delivery method for mass distributrion of video material.

3) The success of YouTube will propel more video on the internet - The public will demand, and get still higher bandwidth, which will create the opportunity for higher-quality video - possibly exceeding what we get from Broadcast.

4) The acceptance of YouTube will create more opportunities for video professionals. Advertisers, and others will be greatly influenced by the knowledge that they can get their messages to people via Internet video.

5) In the Video world - everything has now changed.
wethree schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 17:54 Uhr
Here's a guy who seems to understand a few thing aboutt what some of this means. Ha-- available on Google video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1926631993376203020

...something about RO vs RW culture. NOTE: how much video the presentation contains, how well its responded to when used-- and its (dearth or plethora- depending on yer POV?) production values.

We live in exciting times, no?
Chanimal schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 20:36 Uhr
I've already been requested to edit corporate videos to publish on YouTube. Seem there is a PR opportunity here.

***************
Ted Finch
Chanimal.com

Windows 11 Pro, i9 (10850k - 20 logical cores), Corsair water-cooled, MSI Gaming Plus motherboard, 64 GB Corsair RAM, 4 Samsung Pro SSD drives (1 GB, 2 GB, 2 GB and 4 GB), AMD video Radeo RX 580, 4 Dell HD monitors.Canon 80d DSL camera with Rhode mic, Zoom H4 mic. Vegas Pro 21 Edit (user since Vegas 2.0), Camtasia (latest), JumpBacks, etc.

Jayster schrieb am 10.10.2006 um 20:58 Uhr
Why should professional video producers worry about this? Maybe the same argument was made by film-based photographers when the digital camera came out and later when people could post their digital photos on the net and use photo editing PC apps to touch up images (whereas only a pro photographer could have done it).

To me it doesn't really seem to be as dangerous as all that. So many people have the smallest digital camera they can buy, and touch up their photos with some "quick fix" button on a photo application that came with their PC. I don't claim to be a pro, but I see these same people are always asking me to take pictures for them with my Nikon D50 (a digital SLR with a real lens and filters), because they know I can use it effectively and they know that where necessary I will competently touch it up on a real photo app (PhotoShop). And when they see a video I've edited in Vegas, they know it blows away their raw footage from their tiny consumer camcorder that maybe they only know how to throw in a couple of wipes onto.

Point is, people know the difference of quality and go outside their own capabilities when they need it.
krew schrieb am 11.10.2006 um 02:52 Uhr
I guess I'll be the contrarian :-) It's probably that I just don't understand high finance, or that it still astounds me that internet companies have such a huge market cap vs. the amount of revenue they actually generate. But 1.6 billion dollars is an enormous amount of money and it's going to take a LOT of revenue to recapture that purchase price.

"They must think they see ways to make a lot of money from it. I hope they don't start forcing everyone to watch ads every few cycles to make money. To break even in 10 years they need to make only an average of 150 million a year from it. That should be easy, huh?"

Actually, I don't think you can look at it this way. Money today is worth more than money tomorrow. Generating 150 million a year for ten years is not going to pay off the purchase price. You have to factor in things such as inflation, overhead, operating costs (bandwidth, etc etc.) In 3, 5, 10 years $150M per month isn't going to be worth $150M a month today.

On top of that, Google, Yahoo, etc., are buying things such as YouTube based on money they have generated from investors (shareholders) solely based on the perception of what the company is worth. At some point there may be a very large correction in those values.

Like I said though, it's probably just my shortsightedness or lack of understanding on how these things work.
dibbkd schrieb am 11.10.2006 um 03:05 Uhr
To break even in 10 years they need to make only an average of 150 million a year from it. That should be easy, huh?"

Oh come on, that's easy, it's less than $5.00 every second. Of every minute, of every year, for 10 years. Easy.

:)

Sarcasm aside, I don't know what Google was thinking, but if I had the kind of money Google had who knows what I'd do. Google is a smart company, and I love their products. I'm having faith Google made a smart move with the purchase of YouTube. Oh, and I love YouTube too, great place to chill.
PeterWright schrieb am 11.10.2006 um 04:24 Uhr
The apparent valuation of YouTube, and indeed of Google itself astounds me.

Both are free services, and have certainly never generated any income from me, but I am probably not your typical consumer.

Has anyone here been responsible for Google earning any money?
CAmpworks schrieb am 11.10.2006 um 05:20 Uhr
The google execs should have done some googling on Youtube. They would have realized that they got a bunch of copyright infringement lawsuits coming for their money. Stupid buy. Mark my word, sell your google stock now.
Konrad schrieb am 11.10.2006 um 06:43 Uhr
"Has anyone here been responsible for Google earning any money?"

Yes

Google ads on my websites earn me more than my ISP bill. I also paid for Google ads but found that they did not get me much. We pulled the plug on buying Google ads a month ago and income is the same as before with people finding us through normal search results.
riredale schrieb am 11.10.2006 um 13:04 Uhr
A few months ago John Dvorak (PC Mag columnist) wrote this where he said YouTube was a money sink. I saw (on YouTube, natch) yesterday a short video of the YouTube founders, thanking all their supporters. They looked incredibly naive and unintelligent. OTOH, they are the ones going through the options list at the local Ferrari dealer today, not me.

One thing that this deal does--it likely cements Flash as THE video standard for internet delivery.
Tim L schrieb am 11.10.2006 um 17:13 Uhr
"They would have realized that they got a bunch of copyright infringement lawsuits coming for their money. Stupid buy. Mark my word, sell your google stock now."

Its not like Google won't have any leverage when a lawsuit comes up. Say, for example, ABC sues Google because somebody uploaded clips from Desparate Housewives.

A few days later... "Huh? I did a Google search for Desparate Housewives and it didn't return *any* hits??? None at all???"

I'm sure there are lots of stolen goods for sale on eBay, and they probably have to dedicate a certain amount of resources to policing it and fighting it, but "stolen content" isn't going to bring eBay down when there still is plenty of legitimate stuff to sell. The same probably goes for YouTube.

Tim L

(btw, No, I don't watch Desparate Housewives... just an example.)
deusx schrieb am 11.10.2006 um 17:35 Uhr
>>>>Its not like Google won't have any leverage when a lawsuit comes up<<<

You're assuming google will still be around.

If all of the major labels and studios sue you, you can be out of business pretty quickly no matter how many billion you're worth on paper. With this buy Google turned itself into a video Napster ( and that was shut down ).

Google may decide to clean up youtube, we don't know yet. But left as it is, anything is possible. $250 000 pre infringement, you want to count how many videos there are that infringe on somebody's copyright and do the math?

And even this scenario: >>A few days later... "Huh? I did a Google search for Desparate Housewives and it didn't return *any* hits??? None at all???"<<<

wouldn't really have any effect whatsoever on the show. TV is still TV and won't be replaced by things like youtube. Everybody knows where to find info about a show like that without having to do a search.
BrianAK schrieb am 11.10.2006 um 17:52 Uhr
That 100 million views per day really got me thinking, so, in an attempt to waste a little time, I offer this completely unscientific study...

World population = 6.5 billion
World population with internet = 0.8-1 billion = call it 900 million

US internet users = 200 million
US internet users with broadband (~35%) = 70 million

Rest World users = 700 million
Rest World users with broadband (~15%) = 105 million

Total World population with broadband internet = 175 million

Assuming:
Each day a user watches 4 different videos so,
100 million videos / 4 = 25 million unique users per day

Therefore, percentage of Total World Population with broadband internet that watches 4 videos on YouTube every day =
(25/175)*100 = 14%

Im not buying it. I smell a conspiracy. Someone get Oliver Stone on the phone.
Wes C. Attle schrieb am 12.10.2006 um 11:56 Uhr
You guys should read "The Search" and/or "The Google Story". I just listened to both audio books recently during my daily subway commutes. The world is changing for the better. There is no simple explanation, but both books give a nice insight into the tip of the iceberg that is our future. Really good stuff. Trust me.

Both books were written a year ago, but they both basically predict and explain the pending media/YouTube purchases.
craftech schrieb am 13.10.2006 um 02:05 Uhr
Maybe the Google/YouTube buyout won't affect video producers, but this sure might.

John