YouTube.... it has begun....
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/YouTube.... it has begun....
"This video has been removed due to copyright infringement."
;/
haha that cat leaning back is funny :-D
oh, heaven forbid they stop the site from breaking the law, exposing it to lawsuits that might shut it down...
I thought this was funny too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRsw72FJ7Kk&NRI once read something in a book about some skull that was cemented into ground of some castle because every time it was moved, a loud non-stopping ghostly scream could be heear.... for some reason, this cat reminded me of it.
oh, heaven forbid they stop the site from breaking the law, exposing it to lawsuits that might shut it down...
That's besides the point.
The EU is drafting laws to shut down services like YouTube. It's far too much power for your average citizen to have access to.
I have heard that that Brookster Girl (numa numa lipsynch etc.) got a 3 million dollar contract from Sony.
My only comment on the Sweet tired cat vid... Yoda needs a shave!
Move along, nothing to see here...
Even before the google buyout, YouTube has always removed copyrighted video's after the owner(s) filed a complaint. It's just that in most cases, they didn't bother to complain.
Yeah, this has been going on forever. What's new?
I wanted the cat to fall over :(
I like the guinea pig with the snorkel on.
Can someone explain the business of Youtube to me?
What I'd like to know is how do they make the money?
I mean, Youtube hosts video files - which apparantly costs in the region of $1 million monthly in bandwidth. Whatever the bandwidth bill is, they must be making an income of more than that.
I've heard they have private investors - but hey, the question here is where is the money that pays them coming from?
Exactly who would invest in a business that would cost apparantly $1M per month to run and is basically a free service?
Google apparantly bought the thing for 1.6 Billion, but I still don't understand where the money is coming from for Google to recoup 1.6 billion.
http://youtube.com/t/fact_sheet"YouTube announced its first round of funding in November 2005 for $3.5 million from venture-capital firm Sequoia Capital. In April 2006, YouTube received an additional $8 million in a second round of funding from Sequoia."
Indeed.
What are Sequoia getting back? They are clearly pumping money in.
I still don't understand exactly how Google are getting 1.6 billion back.
I'm intrigued by YouTube - it is absorbing money in billions yet what the hell is it producing?
I mean - who would spend 1.6 billion on a service that is being eyed up by every man and his dog for potential lawsuits?
The future of YouTube was in doubt prior to Google buying it.
Why would anyone buy something for such a huge sum of money, that costs so much to run and could cost millions in lawsuits.
I want answers.
Right, it is all just getting a bit silly:
Despite the fact that YouTube has never generated a profit and, in fact, is rumored to be losing $500,000 a month......
This really does need explaining.
I'm going to Google this 'Sequoia' and find out what the hell kind of Mickey Mouse company they are.
They are a bunch of retards - Look at this:
http://sequoiacap.com/sequoia-capital/Look at the top left of the screen those big black letters saying
HELLO! - does that, or does that not, scream 'We are RETARDED' straight at you?
This is classic entrepreneurship. Youtube is the biggest global entertainment experiment ever. You have no idea how much data they have gathered about what people want to see and when they want to see it. If you open your mind and look at the big picture, you will see that Youtube has risen to the top and is now in a position to reign supreme as one of the biggest entertainment entities in history. It's current momentum is and probably will remain unmatched.
Just a hunch, but I'll bet money on commercial content coming soon.
What can they possibly host that cannot be obtained freely elsewhere?
One of the attractions of YouTube is music videos - they can't possibly sell those, even if they strike deals with record companies. Due to the fact that those are freely available all over the place. There is no market for music videos as Rapidshare, etc are full of them.
I am wondering what YouTube can host that you cannot get freely elsewhere? Or, what can they possibly exclusively host that someone cannot just upload elsewhere?
They can host videos that can't be found elsewhere. Imagine them striking a deal with MTV.
LOL, the lack of imagination in this world never ceases to amaze me!
Yeh, they can host exclusive videos (of whatever nature) that will take minutes to upload somewhere else.
They could make people click their way through adverts to get to videos, but then people will watch the stuff where there are no adverts.
I want to know what their business plan is. I want to study it.
There are 18 users online - I want answers.
A group of nerds set up YouTube and get millions in funding (ie a free company with wages) - next thing, they sell it for 1.6 billion.
A company that never made a profit.
I'm unhappy about this - it cost them nothing, it made no profits (just losses to their investor) and they sold it for 1.6 billion.
They must be laughing their heads off.
If a venture capitalist is going to sink that much money into a business model, I guarantee you a substantial amount of advertising is involved in the business plan. There's no other way around it. That's the way Google makes their bling, and Google bought Youtube. Youtube users are not going to quit visiting due to a 5 - 10 second advert in a video in order to watch 10 - 15 minutes of something of value to them for free. Value = advertising = bling.
So, the key to all of this is not money - it is internet traffic going through your site.
The whole point of making money on the internet is not to make actual money, but to generate traffic.
Indeed - Google is free - there are loads of file/image/video hosting sites that are largely free.
I need to study this more closely.
Anyone can set up a site that is free to use, get millions in investment, costs a fortune to run (to the investor) and sell it for billion or two.
I need to find out more about this. It is most interesting - it even seems easy to do - YouTube was purely a site to host videos - what can be simpler than that?
If you can figure out a way to get people to pay you to get their product's advertisements into the homes of millions of people, then you're set.
I want to know what their business plan is.
That didn't take too long did it?
If you can figure out a way to get people to pay you to get their product's advertisements into the homes of millions of people, then you're set.
Not really - YouTube and Google and all the other free places are hardly crawling with adverts. I'm still analysing this.
True, but the internet is crawling with Google adverts :).
Yeh, but forget Google as it is too complex an operation.
YouTube is our guinea-bitch here.
There are lots of sites that host videos - YouTube is the one that Google wanted for 1.6 billion. There are loads and loads of video hosting sites that are as old as the hills. YouTube did something right that the others didn't - is it just the massive traffic?
Start your own site but use audio instead of video. If you strike gold I'll give you the Troll for free.
I have completed my analysis:
I've edited this all out - it is pure observational genius.
What are Sequoia getting back? They are clearly pumping money in.
A fairly large cut of the 1.6billion of Googles money. They probably got their money back tenfold. Who's a retard now?
Maybe they did. However, that is only because Google bought it for 1.6 billion.
YouTube seemed to be running a risk of facing lawsuits and being shut down before Google stepped in. It all seems a bit risky for a site that was costing so much to run and losing so much money in the process.
I basically sat here tonight and wondered how they made money - I found out that they didn't - it was all losses.
Potentially, Sequoia could have come out very badly. Then again, the money they pumped in may not have been much to them - just seems a lot of money to me to be risking.
I can make this fairly simple. 10 years ago who would have thought that a search engine could be a huge business capable of competing with Microsoft? Now here we are and MS is old hat and Google ... which for all the fanfare etc... is really just a simple homepage with a blank you can use for a query. It just happened to be that their search algorithm produced better results than competitors and so more people went there.
Of course their business was based on words and then later images which of course are worth 1,000 words. I have to say, I've used the image search lately almost more than the text search. Anyway, long story short Google got into video searches as well. The only problem is that videos are worth 100,000's if not millions or billions of words. Just as Google unseated Yahoo! amongst others in the text search department YouTube was about the unseat Google in the next wave of information searches ... video.
In the long term 1.6 billion is a small price to pay for a service which could possibly have unseated Google down the line in the information business. 5 years ago I don't think anyone thought a search engine really had a shot at Microsoft, today Google is right there ... 6 months ago MySpace was all the rage and still is for social networking. However, as far as searching information goes, YouTube shot up really quick and was the video searching site of choice. Making Google video seem ... 'eh'.
At the very least Google might be able to turn a bit of a profit with good pay for content and advertising. At the most they stopped a growing beast from devouring them in the extremely volitile Internet business.