Google buys YouTube for $1.65 BILLION!!!!??!?

[WRXtranceformed]

WOW

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8KLB0EO1.htm">http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... LB0EO1.htm</a><!-- m -->

Shamelessly cross posted from a Subaru site. When I saw that my jaw dropped.

[Feersty]

Yup.

[ScottyB]

i wonder how they'll deal with all the stuff on youtube that has violated copyright laws and what not....its alot of material to sift through

[Evan]

more interesting than the price is that basically google is saying "our video service sucks, but this is what we wanted it to be so we will just buy it"

I just hope they pull down the terrorist videos of american soldiers getting blown up and shot. :evil:

[.RJ]

Google is taking over the world.

Just wait until they merge with RedBull. Then it will be all over.

[Apoc]

more interesting than the price is that basically google is saying "our video service sucks, but this is what we wanted it to be so we will just buy it"

Or.... "We want a virtual monopoly so we're going to own the other major competitor."

Two very different messages.

I just hope they pull down the terrorist videos of american soldiers getting blown up and shot. :evil:

Free speech should not be compromised for the sake of good taste... especially when it's biased towards a specific nation.

[WRXtranceformed]

Free speech should not be compromised for the sake of good taste... especially when it's biased towards a specific nation.

Ho boy, I think the can of worms just got opened.

I'm standing at the crossroads of when my thread begins to run off-topic!!

[Ginger]

Or.... "We want a virtual monopoly so we're going to own the other major competitor."

Or rather, the whole market. There's no monpoly at play, Google's just good at what they do. Throwing the term monopoly around is just a pet peeve of mine.

[Apoc]

I'm going to amend my statement to say if it should be a policy en totale. Either you believe in the First Amendment or you believe that videos of people dying should be prohibited across the board for the sake of human decency.

Since people love to watch videos of terrorists getting blown up by all of our cool gadgetry I doubt folks would agree to that.

[Apoc]

Or.... "We want a virtual monopoly so we're going to own the other major competitor."

Or rather, the whole market. There's no monpoly at play, Google's just good at what they do. Throwing the term monopoly around is just a pet peeve of mine.

Uh oh... did a Google fanboi not like my word choice?

Monopoly
"Situation in which a single producer dominates in a given industry or market."

"Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service."

"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

What am I missing here? Google bought the only real competing product so they have a virtual monopoly. They do not have to be the one and only producer, just a vast majority of the marketshare for the term to be valid.

[white_2kgt]

I'm going to amend my statement to say if it should be a policy en totale. Either you believe in the First Amendment or you believe that videos of people dying should be prohibited across the board for the sake of human decency.

Since people love to watch videos of terrorists getting blown up by all of our cool gadgetry I doubt folks would agree to that.

There is a difference in watching the silhouette of a solider that rapes and kills women and children at 30k feet get blown to bits by a missle in 1/10th of a second and an axe weilding shit stain chopping the head off a guy from 6 feet away that was only there to help rebuilt the sandbox. BIG difference.

[Apoc]

Those are extreme examples but whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Evan]

more interesting than the price is that basically google is saying "our video service sucks, but this is what we wanted it to be so we will just buy it"

Or.... "We want a virtual monopoly so we're going to own the other major competitor."

Two very different messages.

that was my initial reaction, but i dont think thats the case. Google video is a flop relative to YouTube, which has become the Myspace of video sharing. (i prefer vMix myself....)

Free speech should not be compromised for the sake of good taste... especially when it's biased towards a specific nation.

I see your point, but the the government gauranteed right to free speech is very different to a private company gauranteeing that right. The government cant order the video taken down, but YouTube is under no obligation to allow it.
And this is said primarily in the context that YouTube does take down Muslim spoof/lampooning videos after complaints and threats.

[Apoc]

I see your point, but the the government gauranteed right to free speech is very different to a private company gauranteeing that right. The government cant order the video taken down, but YouTube is under no obligation to allow it.
And this is said primarily in the context that YouTube does take down Muslim spoof/lampooning videos after complaints and threats.

Well every company has a right to regulate their product and I wasn't saying that every video should be allowed for the sake of free speech... just that they should have clearly defined policies that aren't biased on gender/national/racial/economical/etc lines. If people believe videos of others dying is wrong, they should all be wrong and not because the victim was a good person or because it makes Americans feel bad.

I really thought I could bait you on this one but I guess not.

[Evan]

hahah, the trap was a little too obvious for me to take the bait

Im not even close to the raving rightie that you guys think I am!

ultimately I think their 'policy' is going to be 'we dont have a policy' and will just delete whatever gets complaints. This leaves them the least liable for lawsuits and doesnt require them to review every video.

[Ginger]

"Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service."

"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

What am I missing here? Google bought the only real competing product so they have a virtual monopoly. They do not have to be the one and only producer, just a vast majority of the marketshare for the term to be valid.

I'm hardly a google fanboi, I don't care much about it either way

One of the key characteristics of a monopoly is that there is barred entry into the market. High sunk costs, market domination, and "difficult to impossible to compete against" are hardly regulatory prohibition from entry. Too bad for somebody trying to enter the market area - but there's no guarantee that it's easy, or that they should be allowed instant equal footing with established producers... nor should there be. Any such action would instantly devalue the efforts of previously established businesses.

To say that there is a lack of competition is also blind of market forces. It's improper to measure a product against it's visible competition - seeing as how Google is not a monopoly it must measure the consumption of it's services against potential competitors.

The above definitions:

The first one: google has no exclusive control of anything.

The second one: An absence of observational competition does not make monopoly. We've addressed potential competition.. but what if it's just not profitable for anybody else to enter the market? The sole producer does not instantly become a monopoly, it's just the only producer, which is neither good nor bad.

[Apoc]

but what if it's just not profitable for anybody else to enter the market? The sole producer does not instantly become a monopoly, it's just the only producer, which is neither good nor bad.

I'm already over the topic but it can not be profitable for a competitor to enter the markey through regulatory costs and its considered a monopoly, why is this any different?

read: shut up ginger!

It's not even profitable for Google and it wasn't for YouTube until Google bought them. I'm still curious how Google is going to monetize anything, including online video.

[.RJ]

I'm still curious how Google is going to monetize anything, including online video.

Same way they do for everything else - advertising.

[Apoc]

I'm still curious how Google is going to monetize anything, including online video.

Same way they do for everything else - advertising.

Advertising is not a bottomless pit of free money. I do not believe they can sustain a long term business solution on advertising alone. While it's true that conventional media does it this I don't believe internet users are as impressionable when it comes to websites. Tivo has changed the face of product placement so what are savvy internet users going to do with run of the mill banners?

I'm convinced they need a tangible product to sell... and it's not going to be the oft-rumored Goggle OS. In addition, if people are so used to getting decent product from Google for free, are they going to be willing to pay for the latest and greatest?

[.RJ]

In addition, if people are so used to getting decent product from Google for free, are they going to be willing to pay for the latest and greatest?

At some point, yes. They're very popular as it is, and there's enough fanbois out there to shell out $$ for products.