×

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!

What Could YouTube Be Worth?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the to-the-highest-bidder dept.

139

An anonymous reader writes "C|Net has a story about the possible cost of YouTube. Sony just paid $65 Million for small-time videosharing outfit 'Grouper'. That site has around 1% of the videosharing market. The article asks, at that price, what might YouTube's 43% be worth?" From the article: "Entertainment analysts have predicted in recent weeks that sites with large followings would command a high price. The Sony deal proved them right. But while the Grouper deal helped establish a benchmark, there is still plenty of confusion about the fair value of online video companies. This is because the typical metrics for measuring a company appear to have gone out the window--just like they did during the bubble years of the late 1990s."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

139 comments

Not much (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975011)

Why should they be worth anything? All they do is stream crappy home videos and funny moments from cable tv. They have no profits. They are worthless. Bah humbug!

Re:Not much (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975400)

I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that Sony wouldn't spend millions on a website that's losing money.

Re:Not much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975624)

and that is because you don't know Sony.

Re:Not much (1)

robdavy (850571) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975712)

From TFA:

"By agreeing to pay $65 million for Grouper--a profitless video-sharing company with negligible market share--Sony..."

If by profitless, they mean loss-making, then yes, they would spend millions on a site that's losing money...

Way to make money ... (5, Insightful)

kabz (770151) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975014)

Here's my brilliant Web 2.0 business plan:

1. Copy YouTube idea
2. Rename it PornTube
3. ???
4. Profit !!

Re:Way to make money ... (5, Informative)

Red Alastor (742410) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975037)

You mean just like xtube is doing ?

http://www.xtube.com/ [xtube.com]

Re:Way to make money ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975368)

Now that's +5, Informative!

Re:Way to make money ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975710)

Dammit, now xtube is gonna be down tonight.

Re:Way to make money ... (5, Informative)

fury683 (981518) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975064)

Re:Way to make money ... (4, Interesting)

kz45 (175825) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975242)

I think I should remind everyone that pornotube has 99% gay (male) content.

Re:Way to make money ... (1)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975067)

Don't forget the most obvious one: PornoTube.


Not that I would know about such things, mind.

Re:Way to make money ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975331)

I hear [slashdot.org] 99% of their content is man-on-man gay sex. Not that you would know about such things, mind.

Re:Way to make money ... (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975177)

You joke, but it makes me sick to see how many of my friends are introduced to Youtube, and the first thing they search for is porn-related.

Re:Way to make money ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975316)

Why does that make you sick? Porn is the internet's killer app.

Re:Way to make money ... (1)

Perseid (660451) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975923)

The first thing I searched for was j-pop videos, so I don't feel nearly as dirty. Hah.

I mean, they're just videos of cute teenage girls jumping around that you only need 3-5 minutes with.

Oh. Never mind.

Better idea. (1)

Project2501a (801271) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976319)

Hype up the site by posting related article on Slashdot, in which you compare the site with another, of lesser value, cite a figure for the lesser-worth site, estimate that site-you-want-to-pump is worth 10 times that much. This is a classic public relations recepie to hype up an industry. Paul Graham, anyone? [paulgraham.com]

Re:Way to make money ... (1)

hostse (997720) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976368)

nice plan .. but the problem is if you cannot brand your porn tube enough your website is going to be lost in hundreds of other copycats ....

$2,795,000,000 (4, Insightful)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975017)

Ohhh I love maths questions!

Sony just paid $65 Million for small-time videosharing outfit 'Grouper'. That site has around 1% of the videosharing market. The article asks, at that price, what might YouTube's 43% be worth?

I would think the answer is $65m * 43 = $2,795,000,000.

Re:$2,795,000,000 (5, Funny)

Jesterboy (106813) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975069)

Too conservative; I'm thinking 5 hojillion.

Dollars.

Canadian dollars.

Re:$2,795,000,000 (1)

XMyth (266414) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975814)

So, what, about 20 US dollars?

Re:$2,795,000,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15976987)

So, what, about 20 US dollars?

For British readers, this is approximately tuppence.

Re:$2,795,000,000 (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975653)

Yeah, but is Grouper losing money at the same rate Youtube is? Last I heard, their bandwidth bills were in the millions of dollars per month, which isn't even close to covered by advertising and whatnot.

Re:$2,795,000,000 (1)

generalphilips (816053) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975687)

That turns out to be a decent estimate [cbsnews.com].

Let me save you the click:
it appears only a matter of time before YouTube gets acquired - some speculate for as much as $2 billion
.

Re:$2,795,000,000 (1)

generalphilips (816053) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975750)

Actually, that's just going in circles, because the original source [techcrunch.com] for the $2 billion estimate is TechCrunch [techcrunch.com]. His estimate was based on the Comscore data which said that Grouper had 542,000 unique visitors in July while YouTube had 16 million. So he was doing basically the same math as the parent - YouTube had about 32 times more visitors, multiply 32 by $65million, you get just over $2 billion.

Re:$2,795,000,000 (1)

spongman (182339) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975979)

The Comscore numbers are incorrect. Those guys get their statistics by scraping them from the bottom of their crack pipes.

Which is 2.5% of Google, or 12% of CBS (1)

lazzaro (29860) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975987)

2.8 billion is around 2.5% of Google's market cap. If you asked a Wall Street analyst if they attributed 2.5% of Google's market cap to Google Video, they'd might say yes, based on the hopes that Google will be able to monetize it someday.

Another way to look at it: CBS Corporation has a market cap of 22 Billion. CBS owns all sorts of businesses, I haven't done the math to estimate what % of the market cap would be attributable to the CBS broadcast network and the fully-owned affiliates, but I wouldn't be surprised if its something like 10-20% of CBS ... which puts it in the range of the 2.8B YouTube estimate.

It's all relative... (5, Insightful)

HMC CS Major (540987) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975020)

950M, 650M, 250M, 250K. It's pulling 20gbps of data and has millions of eyes watching ad-ready video players.

It's only worth what it can make in a reasonable amount of time, and that time is growing short as video blogging [vobbo.com] competitors [castpost.com] build [fileratings.com] their [vimeo.com] userbases [ourmedia.com].

Eventually their huge market share will begin being split by competiing sites that slightly beat their technology, and then the value starts to fall...

Mod parent DOWN (0, Redundant)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975079)

Thanks for linking a pornography streaming server in your link:

Here I click on that and see the log:
What are we doing on Vimeo at the moment:
kinson added Ricky Van Veen as a contact.
9:35 PM EST
Tony uploaded Maple Leaf Rag - Short n' Messy

'Maple Leaf Rag - Short n' Messy' is certainly the kind of video many Americans will apreciate.

Won't anyone think of the children!

Re:It's all relative... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975301)

I agree, if they don't do a better job of capitalizing on their success, they are going to have difficulties in the future. They can't run on VC money forever. The dot com boom was in part of foolish VCs that listened to the lie about not needing the business plan, and the dot com bust was in part of VCs starting to wise up to the fact that they've been taken.

I'm not even sure if any technology investment is worthwhile given the vicious cycle of ups and downs. It looks to me to be a "hot potato" scheme, where you try to sell your share in a company before it goes bust.

Re:It's all relative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975811)

Seems like Youtube is well on its way to establishing itself as a brand name. They have a huge library, their site works well (and is pretty liberal as far as things like embedding on other pages goes.) Millions of internet users are being trained that, if you want to host a video-- or search for videos uploaded by others-- the first stop is Youtube. As long as they keep the pace with competitors, why should we expect a mass exodus?

Wait for the revolution (5, Insightful)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975034)

Soon, Old Television shows and Movies will be offered on various sites as the rights are given out. Eventually you'll be able to watch any show or Movie that's ever existed. Then after this happens, a connection to your television or special television will be created that will let you watch anything that's every existed at your will.

These amatuer home videos are just the beginning. Eventually all professionally done shows will be available. And maybe there will be an indy uprising of stuff that wouldn't get on TV, but will be seen on the net. Actually that's already happened, but I believe amatuer stuff will become more refined over time.

Re:Wait for the revolution (1)

oskard (715652) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975070)

Any show or movie that still exists* There is footage from films such as Metropolis that will sadly never, ever be recovered.

Re:Wait for the revolution (1)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 7 years ago | (#15977173)

There is footage from films such as Metropolis that will sadly never, ever be recovered.
Don't worry, it's only a matter of time before someone remakes it at least ten times better than the original. Tom Cruise will be in it, probably.

Re:Wait for the revolution (1)

Deoxyribose (997674) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975189)

Um, people have been posting TV shows on youtube and such (streaming video 'channels' is one thing that readily springs to mind). Of course, it's not completely legit. You don't have to wait for the revolution, it's already in progress.

Re:Wait for the revolution (4, Interesting)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975284)

You know, when the Internet was invented, people said it would be the end of libraries. There was the idea that you could take every book, magazine, journal, newspaper, etc. ever printed and put it online. And what a grand idea that would be. Then the intellectual property barons came out and put a quick end to that dream. It's sad, really, when you think of what the Internet could have been. A place where all information could be free, and information could transcend the barriers of distance, culture, politics, even language. Instead, everyone came to the party with their hand out, concerned with how they can get the biggest slice of the pie. If this mentality had existed 800 years ago, we'd still be in the dark ages. It would be nice if I could live to see the beginning of the next renaissence.

Re:Wait for the revolution (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975329)

Then the intellectual property barons came out and put a quick end to that dream. It's sad, really, when you think of what the Internet could have been.

But someone has to pay for the tubes!

Re:Wait for the revolution (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976010)

If this mentality had existed 800 years ago, we'd still be in the dark ages.

Oddly enough - this mentality did exist 800 years ago. Why do you think patents and copyrights were invented in the first place?

The writing's on the wall.... again. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975038)

dotcom 2.0 crash, here we come! Wheeeee!!!!

Re:The writing's on the wall.... again. (1)

kahrytan (913147) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975761)


  Companies relying to heavily on advertising caused the first dotcom bubble to burst. It seems no one learned their lesson.

Also, I don't even use YouTube or have it bookmarked.

sony bought grouper? noo! (1)

sdnoob (917382) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975041)

what's the motivation here? to keep an eye on what media people have on their pc to share?

Important Factoid (1)

Don Negro (1069) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975054)

It's important to realize that Grouper was founded by Josh Feltzer of spinner.com fame.

In other words, Sony didn't buy Grouper for $65 million, Josh Feltzer sold Grouper for $65 million.

I don't know (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975061)

what might YouTube's 43% be worth?
I don't know, but I thought it was higher before I saw this [youtube.com].

Red flag (5, Insightful)

LotsOfPhil (982823) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975065)

This seems like a warning sign to me. If you don't know how much it's worth and don't see how it can make money, you probably shouldn't spend a billion dollars on it.
there is still plenty of confusion about the fair value of online video companies. This is because the typical metrics for measuring a company appear to have gone out the window--just like they did during the bubble years of the late 1990s.
Nobody knows whether anyone can make money by hosting user-submitted videos. (None of the top standalone companies in the sector has reported profits.)

Youtube may be worth the hardware they run on... (3, Informative)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975068)

If Youtube doesn't get some more VC soon to pay their estimated $1mil/month bandwidth costs, they may be worth nothing more than 600 or so servers. http://blog.forret.com/2006/05/youtube-bandwidth-t erabytes-per-day/ [forret.com] Keep in mind that article was written in May... Bubble 2.0 can change a lot in 3 months.

Re:Youtube may be worth the hardware they run on.. (4, Funny)

imemyself (757318) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975123)

Even if YouTube were to go bankrupt tomorrow, someone would still pay *big* bucks for their domain name. Probably someone like Google, Yahoo, or MS.

Re:Youtube may be worth the hardware they run on.. (1)

Not The Real Me (538784) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975453)

We should always remember the tens of billions of dollars poured into the giants of Web 1.0 like Tripod.com, geocities.com, go.com, and Lycos.com. The venture capitalists always put their money where their brain is.

You mean... (1)

rolandog (834340) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976180)

"The venture capitalists always put their money where their brain is." You mean... up their buttocks?

Re:Youtube may be worth the hardware they run on.. (1)

lcohiomatty86 (985176) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975798)

while the domain name itself would be quite valuable initially.. if the content that replaces the defunct website isnt appealing to the origional audience.. they would quickly find their videos somewhere else.. kinda like if slashdot was bought out and replaced with a video gaming only website.. some people would stay.. but most would go elsewhere.. as their interested in the "nerd" aspect of /.

Re:Youtube may be worth the hardware they run on.. (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975128)

I was wondering about that the last time I was on YouTube. "How the hell can they get, much less pay for, that much bandwidth?" Music is one thing, but video takes a whole lot of bandwidth. I have to wonder the same thing about anyone who even thinks about doing HDTV over the internet. Only the ISP could realistically provide that... which in many cases means the cable companies... which really doesn't change the service a whole lot.

Anyway, about YouTube... how do they make their money anyway? Do they have ads? (I have adblock, so I wouldn't know). I know they put movie trailers up and now some stupid Paris Hilton thing. Is that enough?

-matthew

Re:Youtube may be worth the hardware they run on.. (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975302)

Isn't digital cable already using IP for the MPEG2 stream?

Bubble Business Model? (2, Insightful)

Soong (7225) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975072)

1. Create internet fad.
2. Get bought out. (Profit!)
3. there is no step 3

Step 2 might be expanded "get bought out by people with more money than understanding of internet fads". But really, after step 2 who cares about step 3? That's for the new owner to worry about.

Re:Bubble Business Model? (2, Funny)

joe_bruin (266648) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975155)

Duuuuuude, shut up. You're ruining it for the rest of us. Give me a few more years to ride around on my Razor scooter between the Aeron chairs, developing cool software with no regard to ever making any money, getting company-sponsored lunch and free soda, and collecting worthless stock certificates for IPOs that will never happen. Those of you that missed the bubble the first time around: it's a good time to be an engineer, enjoy it. Find a job where culture is everything. Get a raise every six months. Meet a girl with a nose ring. Do cool shit, work hard, have fun, live it up. Eventually it will all blow over and we'll all have to get the blue out of our hair, so try to enjoy it while it lasts.

Re:Bubble Business Model? (1)

saridder (103936) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976062)

Don't forget the rooftop parties in SF on weekends. Who was that, Red Herring if I remember correctly?

It Was the Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975077)

Sony apparently made this acquisition for Grouper's technology. The website was an added bonus. Idiot journalists should leave valuations to professionals that do valuations for a living. It's a lot more complicated than "marketshare" and eyeballs.

Uh waaahhh? (5, Funny)

Mayhem178 (920970) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975080)

Entertainment analysts have predicted in recent weeks that sites with large followings would command a high price.

In other news, Entertainment analysts also predicted unanimously that tomorrow the sun will rise. Other predictions include that next week will have exactly 1 Monday and that Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa will not be candidates for the 2008 Presidential election.

More at 11.

Re:Uh waaahhh? (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975106)

I don't understand why we have "entertaiment analysts" commenting on the business of web sites. Sure, one could claim that Youtube is an "entertainment" site. So, um, since cruise ships have entertainment, I guess the entertainment analysts will be giving us their opinions on the cruise ship industry any day now.

The word "monetize" gives me the willies... (2, Informative)

untorqued (957628) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975087)

but it's a major difference between grouper and YouTube. The folks who created grouper built DRM into their schemes, creating a ready-to-use widget for some big media company to scoop up and plug into their (flawed) strategy. YouTube, not so much. Lotsa eyeballs, but so far just another iteration of
1. Build a ____ sharing site.
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:The word "monetize" gives me the willies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975323)

1. Build a ____ sharing site.

____ = "used panty"! whee!

eBay already stopped this - how about www.usedpantybay.com ?

Who's With me?

Sure, it's stupid, but where do you think the money comes from? A few smart people or (more than you fear) many stupid pervs?

Legality (4, Interesting)

coop247 (974899) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975119)

Copyright owners are finally starting to sue YouTube [techdirt.com]. Interestingly enough they are using the Grokster ruling, that "companies could be liable if they were found to induce the infringement in some manner."

Their terms of use [youtube.com] say that users are responsible for any content posted. However, if I had a copyright on something posted I'd rather sue the company worth possibly billions than go through the hassle of hunting down a user.

I haven't really heard about too much of this, so they are probably doing a pretty good job of taking down offending clips, but when lawyers smell money in the water, look out.

Re:Legality (1)

earthbound kid (859282) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975324)

It's a bullshit suit though, since you don't have to sue Youtube to get a video pulled, you just have to click the links to inform about the infringement.

Re:Legality (1)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975485)

It would seem at if a VERY large portion of YouTube's content is content they don't own a the rights to. This is not going to last forever.

Wait 2 years and we'll talk about youtube like we talk about Napster today. ie "remember when youtube was cool and you could find anything on it?"

Internet analysts always get it wrong. (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975169)

Just put some ads on there and see what they sell for.

Anyways this ISN'T like search engine technology.

It's WAY TOO EASY to copy what youtube is doing.

The competitors are already taking their share.

Re:Internet analysts always get it wrong. (3, Interesting)

badasscat (563442) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975379)

It's WAY TOO EASY to copy what youtube is doing.

People said the same thing about Ebay.

The thing is, while it may be easy to copy the site, what's not so easy is getting people to care. The reason why sites like Ebay and YouTube stay popular over the long-term (and that is my prediction about YouTube - it's only going to get bigger) is that it is a self-sustaining marketplace. In Ebay's case, sellers go where the buyers are, and buyers go where the sellers are. In YouTube's case, same thing - video posters go where the viewers are, and the viewers go where those posting the most video are.

People spend hours just surfing around video there, searching for various things. You can find *anything* on YouTube - it's not just about home movies. I just found David Lynch's short-lived comedy series "On the Air" there a day ago, for example - this is a show I *never* thought I'd see again. I see stuff like this all the time there, and I rarely see similar things elsewhere. It's gotten to the point where if you want to find some piece of video, no matter how obscure, you just immediately go to YouTube because you know it's there. Why even bother with anywhere else?

Of course, YouTube has some potential pitfalls, but then so does all of its competitors. Most of what's on the site is infringing copyright. They have ridiculous bandwidth costs. And the quality is not very good. So it is possible they could fall, but if they do, it won't be because some competitor copied their site and did X thing a little bit better. They're going to have to implode of their own accord or through some legal matter in order to turn over the reigns.

Re:Internet analysts always get it wrong. (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975724)

So all you have to do is build a search engine that will search YouTube, Google Video, Vobbo, Xflks, Uapoql, and all the other video search engines.

eBay succeeded once they built up a centralized community: people could build up a good rep, something useful when you actually intend to pay a total stranger. Sharing video clips is something that has no "stickiness" by comparison. I liken it to search engines: there's nothing stopping you from moving from Yahoo! to Google, or from Google to Qauzmn, or from Qauzmn to (Unicode 5.0 symbols) for your web searching.

Re:Internet analysts always get it wrong. (1)

n8k99 (888757) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975944)

there are already ad companies putting ads on youtube with the intention of going viral. wifey works in advertising and showed me some stuff that the industry has been looking at and believe you me, that they are going to go crazy soon.

Revenue sucks, but assets are huge (3, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975245)

And the first one in a particular market segment that does it right gets a heavy share. Look at the iPlod.... My(gonad)Space... and many other interesting ideas.

The problem: no revenue model for it yet. The great thing: easily understood and manipulated. Now there are many knock-offs, including PornoTube, and so on.

What's it worth? With little intellectual property, not much except in future revenue potential. Some aging media king, like Sony, ought to buy them and lose lots of money on them, like TW did with AOL.

Seriously folks, until a revenue model appears, it's just cool, not worth much

Re:Revenue sucks, but assets are huge (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976055)

Some aging media king, like Sony, ought to buy them and lose lots of money on them, like TW did with AOL.

Usually though the opposite happens. Companies don't lose money on these deal, they usually gain a lot. A company comes around and buys up ****.com, and as they run it into the ground they make a fortune. They don't usually spend millions (or as estimated with YouTube, billions) of dollars to lose it in a gamble. The first thing a buyer, like Sony, would do is use their existing might to trick out their new baby. Exclusive contracts, tie-ins, or in this case ads and spam. If they've got a winner they will go in it for the long haul, but if they decide it isn't worth it then the companies mission statement finally dies and the fat cats laugh to the bank.

Put it this way: a movie could be made, that no one actually saw, and the filmmaker can still make money though promotions or merchandise. If I bought youtube, I could score

You Tube not worth much (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975269)

The cost for users to stop using youtube and use a different service is very low. If the switching cost is low, they will switch. There is nothing intrinsically special about YouTube. Remember the old names of search market? Lycos, Web Crawler, HotBot? Blown away because of better technology.

However if the youtube and its imitators replacing the Akimbo service and the other video delivery services they might be in the money. But video content producers are so vary of delivering it via the internet, I wont be holding my breath.

1/800,000,000th less than they think... (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975295)

If there are 800M broadband users, and I am one, and I haven't watched any ads from youtube, then the value is worth less than they think by 1/800,000,000th.

Probably more, because I actually have money, pay for my own ISP connection, own a house, etc. On the other hand, I am not TOO young, so maybe I am not the "money" demographic. Heh, The way things are going in the US, the "money" demographic aren't going to have any -- it is all going to be sucked into retirement benefits for "us", soon (whether we need it or not!).

Re:1/800,000,000th less than they think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15975518)

Right. The thing you're not getting about YouTube is that you probably have watched many ads, and didn't know it. Just because a video doesn't look like it was made to be an ad doesn't mean it's not an ad. Wake up and smell the coffee, it's 2006.

Re:1/800,000,000th less than they think... (1)

amrust (686727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975554)

I guess I don't get it either. But as far as I can tell, the closest thing to an advertisement I have ever seen on YouTube, is the new feature at the end of the videos, showing you "other related clips".

I'm using Firefox/Adblock. So maybe that's it. As far as "subliminal advertising" on YouTube... I'm not saying it's not there. Just that I have never seen it myself. I think you're being a bit paranoid.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I MUST go buy 3 cases of that delicious Pepsi Cola.

Immediately.

I think you should ask like Emmalina like... (2, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975522)

"...because like, you know, like well, it's hard to explain but like it's really good, y'know."

Yes that's enough from some silly teen bimbo shaking her backside on YouTube and thinking she's made a revolutionary discovery.

What's it worth? Very little. Probably a little for the interface, a little for the interface, and a little for the brand name recognition. What will greedy morons pay? Who knows! Stopped trying to predict that during the .com boom. It seems

YouTube is great because of a bit of Flash. (4, Insightful)

WoTG (610710) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975841)

Really, what made YouTube a success?

IMHO, it's soooo easy to watch the videos and share the videos. It used to be a royal pain to put video on your small or personal website. Real Audio? Windows Media? Quicktime? They were all problem prone. The odds of having those work for more than... oh, 70% of your viewers was slim at best. OS support, plugins working, and having the server side software -- it was all a mess. Never mind the bandwidth requirements. YouTube made it easy. Since more than 90% of people have Flash installed, and Flash video seems idiot proof (to watch), the whole video thing is now practical. Plus YouTube provides the bandwidth, and cut-and-paste HTML for sharing.

In hindsight, it's a simple concept, executed well, and with good timing. That said, I wouldn't spend a billion for it. I don't think people care where they host their videos as long as it's free, quick, and easy. I doubt that many people actually browse YouTube, so switching costs for video sharers and viewers is pretty much zero.

Re:YouTube is great because of a bit of Flash. (1)

KeyThing (997755) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976872)

You're exactly correct. The cross platform compatibility of flash, and no need to download different codecs, or have the video pop up in another window... that's what makes it worth it. Pretty much the same thing I'm doing in my small business. And, hey, I wouldn't mind a 65mil buyout. ;-)

Too much (1)

i8puppies (910027) | more than 7 years ago | (#15975956)

The reason nobody will buy YouTube is because it would cost too much when compared to them just buying a little outfit nobody has heard of, fixing it up a bit, and saying to the world HAY GUYS WE HAVE A YOUTUBE THING TOO!

YouTube is worth ZERO dollars (4, Interesting)

Agrippa (111029) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976137)

No one will buy YouTube because the company that buys them will be the instant winner of hundreds or possibly thousands of copyright lawsuits. Right now there is basically no incentive to sue YouTube because you can't extract much cash from them. But what if Google/Ebay/Yahoo owned YouTube? Well, now you have a nearly bottomless well of cash to go after, and since the offenses would be so trivial to prove, its free money.

Any company with the cash to buy YouTube is going to decide in the long run it isn't worth it.

Re:YouTube is worth ZERO dollars (1)

mydigitalself (472203) | more than 7 years ago | (#15977134)

"Any company with the cash to buy YouTube is going to decide in the long run it isn't worth it."

Er... Rupert Murdoch? Any large media organisation who's business it is to buy and sell rights.

I Haven't Seen This Few Posts ... (1)

thedbp (443047) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976196)

I Haven't Seen This Few Posts Since Winston Churchill Advocated Spam!

billion atleast (1)

hostse (997720) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976356)

you tube should go for a billion atleast ... it popularity is on increasing side ... if facebook can collect a billion then youtube deserves it ...

Worth? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#15976500)

ok. what's a potato worth? It depends who's doing the buying. To me, I'd take a look at their debt, their revenue, the wholesale copyright infringement and say not a whole lot.

 

Re:Worth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15977005)

Pretty much what I was going to post. A website full of copyright infringed works - why would that be worth anything? Remove all the stuff that is clearly breaking copyright law and what are you left with? Video's of teenagers carrying out happy slapping attacks on people - yeah - that's worth billions, clearly.

What is it with the web at the moment? It just seems to be another bubble that will eventually burst. The first one was the dot-com boom - this one will be the social-com boom.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...