Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Over 100 Hours of Video Uploaded To YouTube Every Minute

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the looking-at-the-numbers dept.

Google 83

jones_supa writes "Google's YouTube is celebrating its 8-year birthday, and at the same time they reveal some interesting numbers. 'Today, more than 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. That's more than four days of video uploaded each minute! Every month, more than 1 billion people come to YouTube to access news, answer questions and have a little fun. That's almost one out of every two people on the Internet. Millions of partners are creating content for YouTube and more than 1,000 companies worldwide have mandated a one-hour mid-day break to watch nothing but funny YouTube videos. Well, we made that last stat up, but that would be cool (the other stats are true).'"

cancel ×

83 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Where's the obvious second half of this statistic? (5, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about a year ago | (#43774089)

How many hours of video per minute are people watching?

Re:Where's the obvious second half of this statist (2)

WeatherForecast (2641681) | about a year ago | (#43774143)

And even scarier, how many hours of video on YouTube are WORTH watching?

Re:Where's the obvious second half of this statist (2)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43774275)

A LOT
yesterday my son was learning origami via youtube videos. way better than a $20 book like when i was a kid

Re:Where's the obvious second half of this statist (3, Insightful)

olau (314197) | about a year ago | (#43774407)

Agreed. And if you take a look at the top subscribed channels [vidstatsx.com] , it's not all complete crap or copyrighted-by-someone-else material.

Of course, most of the stuff on that list is not something I'd like to watch, but take any list of commercial TV channels, and I'd feel the same way. :)

Re:Where's the obvious second half of this statist (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43775031)

this is all my bad, guys. I upload 100 hours of video about my cat every minute. Maru!

-Magumogu.

Re:Where's the obvious second half of this statist (1)

gronofer (838299) | about a year ago | (#43779289)

Agreed. And if you take a look at the top subscribed channels, it's not all complete crap or copyrighted-by-someone-else material.

To me, working through that list would be a spectacularly bad way of finding videos that are worth watching.

Re:Where's the obvious second half of this statist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43775117)

Every time I see anything pertaining to YouTube, I always have to fight through the useless crap that's been "thumbed-up" by idiots and or bots. This causes the dumb junk to be at the top of lists, plastered in homepages, etc.; this causes the useful stuff to always be overshadowed by the worthless stuff, which creates the reaction you just posted.

It's a shame, really. YouTube has so much potential for so many ways, and yet, it's just like everything else on the internet: used for the wrong reasons. Go ahead and say I'm overgeneralizing things, but to me and in my opinion, 80% of all YouTube videos are worthless crap about some twerp--who has no life--singing some bullshit song that will be forgotten about this time next year.

Re:Where's the obvious second half of this statist (4, Funny)

robthebloke (1308483) | about a year ago | (#43774185)

But more importantly, how many cat videos is that per hour?

Re:Where's the obvious second half of this statist (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#43775557)

Well, the total in 2009 was 110,952 [yahoo.com] according to Yahoo Canada, fwtw. So 27,738 per year and 76 per day, assuming 4 years of non-stop uploading, slow at first of course but reaching high volumes soon enough. Meow, or should we say nyan? But 111k sounds wayyyyyyyyyy too low...

Re:Where's the obvious second half of this statist (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43777923)

None, because 35 hours are chicks showing their tits and making vapid "replies" to popular videos. Another 25 hours are chicks with 20 minute videos doing makeup tutorials, 20 hours are chicks coming home from shopping trips and showing what they bought (I'm serious, this is apparently a fucking "thing", now). The remaining 20 are idiots attempting to make viral videos, but possessing no talent. Or jackholes in their basement trying to be the "next big star" like the other 800 obnoxious teenagers with cult following that always makeup the "top 100 of youtube", but just make you think less of humanity as a whole to know people watch them.

Have they hit a petabyte yet? (2)

scottbomb (1290580) | about a year ago | (#43774095)

I wonder how big, in terms of storage, is the server farm to maintain this monstrosity.

Re:Have they hit a petabyte yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774387)

you need 300 amazon xlarge servers to handle that much incoming video with wowza (a good server will handle up to 200 simultaneous incoming live feeds - 200x300 = 60000 minutes)

Re:Have they hit a petabyte yet? (1)

joss (1346) | about a year ago | (#43774419)

oh, my bad.. make that 30.. its only 6000 minutes per minute.. could be a lot worse

Re:Have they hit a petabyte yet? (1)

joss (1346) | about a year ago | (#43774445)

oh, that's assuming shitty resolution of around 340p

Re:Have they hit a petabyte yet? (1)

Danathar (267989) | about a year ago | (#43774697)

It's Google's infrastructure. THAT's how big.

If I had to guess, youtube is just another app sitting on their distributed whatever it is.

100 hours of video / minute (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#43774117)

In a way Youtube beats time... but that gives an idea of the bandwidth available upstream (downstream being even more monstrous)

News for Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774123)

Stuff that matters.

As we used to say 13 years ago:

It must be a slow news day.

Re:News for Nerds (3, Insightful)

gagol (583737) | about a year ago | (#43774989)

These days, the slow news days are as abundant as cheap crap videos on youtube...

Electrons Gone Missing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774125)

At the rate youtube is expanding the electrons in this universe may soon vanish. Could data become so dense that a black hole is formed?

Re:Electrons Gone Missing (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year ago | (#43776297)

At the rate youtube is expanding the electrons in this universe may soon vanish. Could data become so dense that a black hole is formed?

well maybe...
Data=Knowledge, Knowledge=Power, Power=Energy,
Energy=(Mass*SpeedOfLight)^2 :. Data=(Mass*SpeedOfLight)^2
assuming 1 bit it the basic unit of data,
r=2gm/c^2 == (r(c^2))/g=m
d=mc^2 == d/c^2=m
(r(c^2))/g=d/c^2
dg=c^2 r(c^2)

oh wait you weren't serious...

Manual review (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43774135)

Some large and influential copyright owners are unhappy with the OCILLA safe harbor as interpreted in Viacom v. YouTube and have pushed for requiring each uploaded video to be reviewed by a person before it goes live. How much would it cost to employ people to watch 100 hours of video every minute?

Re:Manual review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774271)

If they assume watching the entire length of video a lot of time. Assuming around $30 / hr as a cost for google to employee someone, each minute would cost them $3,000, Or 4.32M / Day

Re: Manual review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774317)

It's 100 hours every minute, not 100 minutes every minute.

Re:Manual review (1)

mcclungsr (74737) | about a year ago | (#43774307)

How would you train all those people to recognize every copyrighted item? Just every copyrighted piece of music would be impossible. A computer is going to have a lower error rate on this than any group of humans.

Re:Manual review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778631)

Seing how the only video I uploaded was very quickly flagged I'd say copyrighted video at least is watermarked, at least some times on some DVDs.
I took a one minute exerpt from a xvid movie (DVD rip) I torrented using Avidemux, put that on youtube and the result was so high quality (well, compared to your typical youtube video!) that I guess a watermark survived.

Re:Manual review (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year ago | (#43774471)

100 hrs/minute is 6,000 hrs/hr, so you'd need 6,000 people employed around the clock. It's probably close to minimum wage work, so $10/hr or so, puts that at $60,000 per hour or $1,000/minute.

Re:Manual review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774717)

Wasn't there an article about someone who worked as a reviewer for all the flagged videos? I seem to remember that he was complaining about the disgusting and dishartening videos he had to endure all day long. For your 3 shifts of 6000 watchers each, you'd probably need a sizable flock of psychologists ans counselors to nurse them back to health, or at least a condition where you can let then back on the street without them being a danger to themselves or others.

Re:Manual review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774719)

A building with 6000 people watching obnoxious teen blogs and cat videos all day long. ...sooooo it's like every other office building?

Re:Manual review (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#43775161)

And just extending your calculations: 6,000 people employed around the clock at $10 per hour (or more people working shifts so you get 6,000 people working every hour for 24 hours a day-7 days a week) is $60,000 per hour or $1,440,000 per day or over $525 million per year.

Total Google revenues for 2012 were $46,039,000,000 so the "Review Uploaded YouTube Videos" department would cost Google 1% of it's revenue every year.

Re:Manual review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778699)

At that rate everyone will be unemployed in 100 years! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

Re:Manual review (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43774797)

I've got an idea to fire back at them. Require all takedown notices to be reviewed by a human person before being submitted. Then in exchange, Google will promise to have a human review each takedown notice on THEIR end as well. If Google finds a violation - they take it down. If they don't find a violation - the people who sent the complaint are billed for Google's review time!!

Re: Manual review (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year ago | (#43775201)

Wow that actually seems fair

Use Mechanical Turk (Re:Manual review) (1)

romons (2767081) | about a year ago | (#43775043)

They already have millions of reviewers looking at the crap all the time. Just put a 'is it copied?' button next to the video, and after 100 clicks have somebody look at it.

Flag button and disparagement of title (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43775735)

YouTube used to have "copyright infringement" as one option under the flag button until someone pointed out that it encourages users to commit disparagement of title [wikipedia.org] against videos they dislike.

Re:Flag button and disparagement of title (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43777389)

There's no harm to clicking the button as described. If it is taken down after the first 100 clicks, then yes, it's slander of title, but if it's not automatic, then there's no harm.

Re:Flag button and disparagement of title (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43777507)

Better yet, call it the "Name That Tune" button and let people key in what song they hear.

Re: Flag button and disparagement of title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43778133)

i once had a CRT monitor try to play "mary had a little lamb" whenever it powered up but it never got past the first note.

Doing my part (2)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year ago | (#43774141)

I've been doing my part by uploading inane videos [youtube.com] of myself eating at my desk in silence.

The Copyrobeast (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43774169)

myself eating at my desk in silence

In other words, like Magibon [wikipedia.org] . Unfortunately, such videos might be the only videos allowed on YouTube if Big Copyright gets its way [pineight.com] .

Re:Doing my part (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about a year ago | (#43777619)

What amazes me are the 5 "likes".

I keep on wondering (2)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a year ago | (#43774171)

How can this be a sustainable business model?
No, i have no background whatsoever in economics and\or management.

Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774309)

Some folks have actual advertising deals where they get paid (less YOuTube commission) when you watch their video.

And then there's the little side videos of "you may be interested in this.".

And then there are the adverts placed in your search.

Re:Advertising (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#43775689)

Some folks have actual advertising deals where they get paid (less YOuTube commission) when you watch their video.

And then there's the little side videos of "you may be interested in this.".

And then there are the adverts placed in your search.

Okay, I have a question. In all of internet history, has anyone ever clicked on an advertisement and actually purchased an item? Just wondering.

Re:Advertising (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#43776189)

Thank you for supporting Slashdot.

Re:Advertising (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | about a year ago | (#43776525)

I bet you've never clicked on a television commercial either.

Yup (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about a year ago | (#43777625)

I bought some web hosting by responding to a spam email.

Good Buy (1)

Andrio (2580551) | about a year ago | (#43774173)

It's safe to say that Google acted wisely when they bought YouTube, despite the fact that it was losing money (and continued to for a few years).

I wonder how things have turned out if MS bought YouTube instead?

Re:Good Buy (3, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | about a year ago | (#43774483)

Same thing that happened with hotmail. They switch to Windows servers, it crashes and burns horribly, so they switch back. There's no quality control, no development, it goes to hell, and everyone switches to the far superior service Google offers (since they decided to grow their own and not acquire youtube).

Then they switch everyone over to zune.com or something to try capitalizing on their name .. or perhaps trying to gain a name, it's hard to tell really .. complete with commercials about people deleting hundreds of hours of video in a single click in the middle of other unrelated activities, because you know that's the feature we've all really been missing.

Re:Good Buy (0)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year ago | (#43775305)

They switch to Windows servers, it crashes and burns horribly, so they switch back. There's no quality control, no development, it goes to hell, and everyone switches to the far superior service Google offers (since they decided to grow their own and not acquire youtube).

Citation needed.

Anyway, try Outlook.com sometime.

Oh no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774205)

Now I'll never be able to keep up.

More nines (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774213)

Theodore Sturgeon once snapped at critics of science fiction by saying "90 percent of anything is garbage." This "law" has since been ported to other fields.

But in the case of YouTube, Sturgeon's Law would need a few more (or a lot more) nines.

Re:More nines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774493)

"I repeat Sturgeon’s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud.[1] Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms."

Re:More nines (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#43775731)

In my mind there is a curve of useful information which started out exponentially when the internet started and is now horizontally approaching an asymptote. The amount of total information, however has continued to grow exponentially. Thus the need for services such as google, bing, yahoo to help us to sort through the endless streams of junk to find the one or two nuggets of information worth having.

So how long... (2)

opusman (33143) | about a year ago | (#43774221)

...until the total length of video on YouTube is greater than the age of the universe?

Re:So how long... (4, Informative)

Zordak (123132) | about a year ago | (#43774333)

The universe is approximately 13.7E9 years old. There are 8.766E3 hours in a year. Thus, the universe is approximately 1.20E14 hours old. So at a rate of 100 hours per second, it would take 1.20E12 second to exceed the age of the universe in YouTube videos. 1.20E12 seconds works out to around 1 million years. So we have a way to go still.

Re:So how long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43775389)

And how long until the universe will not contain sufficient matter/energy to store all those bits?

Re:So how long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43775573)

The universe is approximately 13.7E9 years old. There are 8.766E3 hours in a year. Thus, the universe is approximately 1.20E14 hours old. So at a rate of 100 hours per minute, it would take 1.20E12 minutes to exceed the age of the universe in YouTube videos. 1.20E12 minutes works out to around 60 million years. So we have a lot of way to go still.

FTFY...

The other second order effect (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about a year ago | (#43777663)

How long to upload videos totally 60 million years? You'll need another 416 2/3 days to cover that. And then another 4 days to cover that. Rounding up: 60,000,421 days.

Re:So how long... (1)

shrikel (535309) | about a year ago | (#43778431)

Ah, but you're assuming videos will continue to be uploaded at a constant rate. Extrapolate future upload rates based on the past 10 years' growth history (or an estimate, if necessary), and recalculate. I'd do it myself, but I'm too lazy and I'm pretty sure somebody else here will take it as a challenge.

Re:So how long... (1)

Pembers (250842) | about a year ago | (#43774337)

About two million years at the current rate. Of course, if the rate of uploading continues to accelerate as it has been doing, they might get there a bit sooner.

Re:So how long... (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about a year ago | (#43774627)

At 100 hours per minute, youtube is filling at a rate of 6000x real time (6000h/h).

Age of the universe: About 13.8 billion years.

13.8e9 years / 6000 = 2.3e6

So, assuming a constant upload rate (a huge assumption): in 2.3 million years.

(I should have includeed the additional age of the universe until this happens,
but that's less than a rounding error at this precision.)

Re:So how long... (1)

Captoo (103399) | about a year ago | (#43774811)

We may run out of cats before that. Then the YouTube upload rate will be negligible.

Re:So how long... (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year ago | (#43778149)

...until the total length of video on YouTube is greater than the age of the universe?

Considering the universe is 6000 years old, 6000/100 HPM= 60 minutes.

What blows my mind (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year ago | (#43774257)

Even allowing for a "power law" access pattern for the videos (and perhaps, Google optimizing storage of frequently-accessed video in RAM or fast disks...), I do wonder how the hell you can access any video in their archive virtually instantly. Their data centres must be MASSIVE.

Re:What blows my mind (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774357)

You can always take a peek inside [google.com] to find out.

Re:What blows my mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774705)

>virtually instantly

Are we using the same youtube?

Re:What blows my mind (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | about a year ago | (#43778553)

You say that, but I've looked at videos that buffered at low resolutions even though I could watch a popular, high-resolution video without buffering. So, yes, you can access any video but you probably won't enjoy it.

there's something for everyone (2)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about a year ago | (#43774347)

I have to exert some willpower now and again to not become annoyed at all of the garbage on YouTube (or the Internet for that matter).

The wisdom of George Carlin is immensely helpful in this regard: "Have you ever noticed that their stuff is **** and your **** is stuff?"

RIP, sir.

Hey Google, Where's Video Search? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774351)

And I don't mean text search for keywords associated with the video. I mean if I upload a photo of my buddy Mike to Google Video search, return all the clips on Youtube that your facial recognition SW thinks include Mike.

Re:Hey Google, Where's Video Search? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43775027)

And also return all the clips that include a girl I'm stalking so I can comment on each of those.

How about "no"?

I prefer YouPorn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774385)

I watch it A LOT.

Re:I prefer YouPorn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43775671)

I watch it A LOT.

If you watch 100 hours of YouPorn every minute, you will go blind.

"warp 39" in star trek terms (1, Interesting)

peter303 (12292) | about a year ago | (#43774479)

In original Star Trek the warp number seed was the cube of light velocity. 100 hours per minute is a 60,000-fold factor or 39-cubed. Even at that speed it would take a year and four months cross the Milky Way from one side to another.

Re:"warp 39" in star trek terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774603)

What the fuck is velocity cubed? Is it cubic-kilometers per cubic-hours? Meters cubed per second cubed?

Myself, I measure velocity in c. So the speed of light is 1 c, cubed is still 1, but with a unit that suggests volume is accelerating.

Re:"warp 39" in star trek terms (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774841)

peter303 doesn't explain well and is bad at arithmetic.

The original Star Trek writers' notes from the 60s have an equation to figure out the Warp Factor (the 5 in "plot a course to Earth, Warp 5"). Divide the speed of the ship by the speed of light and take the cube root. So Warp 1 is equivalent to the speed of light (the cube root of 1) and warp 10 would be 1000 times the speed of light. it's a pretty simple scale.

I think he is trying to say that if you took "hours per minute" as a speed(which makes no sense) it'd be warp factor 39. He starts off by saying that 100 hours/minute is "a 60,000 fold" factor. As near as I can tell from what he says he means 6,000 (change hours to minutes to get 6,000 minutes/minute). Then I think he is saying that to get a speed of 60,000 times the speed of light you'd need warp 39. This is correct enough, 39.15.
So if you wanted 6,000 times the speed of light that'd be warp 18.17.

none of this explains why he saw "hours/minute" and decided it was a speed to change into a warp factor...

Re:"warp 39" in star trek terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43775357)

So...how many youtube videos is that per kessel run?

Re:"warp 39" in star trek terms (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | about a year ago | (#43776287)

They changed it to be a logarithmic scale where 10 was infinite velocity. This happened sometime in The Next Generation, as they did go "over warp 10" in one episode.

mostly crap (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year ago | (#43774563)

100 hours a minute, and only .00001% worth watching.

Re:mostly crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43774655)

100 hours a minute, and only .00001% worth watching.

And even that 0.00001% is worth more than all the drivel spewed out by NBC, CBS, FOX etc...

How many copied videos? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#43774665)

Seems like any time someone has a popular video, another user rips it and uploads under their username it to steal hits. The copies and compilations make it really hard to find original content when you're doing searches.

Reposts? (2)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about a year ago | (#43774785)

How many of those uploads are reposts?

Many popular videos have numerous low quality reposts with appended logos, intros and captions so that individuals can glom onto the original popularity. It's so bad that it's often impossible to find the original video a year, sometimes months, after the original posting.

How often do they add storage (1)

gravis777 (123605) | about a year ago | (#43774949)

Makes me wonder how fast they are having to add storage. For that matter, what type of storage are they using to use for the constant read / writes. And that is just for YouTube - forget Gmail, Google Earth, Google Docs and Google. Man, I would love to see pictures of Google's DataCenter. Oh, wait, I can Google it:
http://images.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=891&q=google+data+center&oq=google+data+&gs_l=img.3.0.0l9j0i10.648.2409.0.4177.12.11.0.0.0.0.297.1367.3j6j1.10.0...0.0...1ac.1.14.img.4Zg6ztnIvrI [google.com]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?