Google Buys YouTube

[cbloom]

I'm pretty sure Google knows their stock is over-valued, so any purchase they can make with all stock is a good idea.

[JasonK]

[ QUOTE ]
Jason - wtf are you talking about?

Google Video market share + YouTube market share = Google market share. They will just do whatever best fits with the current market and their overall strategy wrt branding.

Likely, as they incorporate their technologies into YouTube, enhancing the user experience, they will fold Google Video (which has no traction whatsoever) into the YouTube banner. The issue here is how to monetize YouTube eyeballs, and if they can sort through the copyright mess.

Who cares if the slow transition is to rebrand YouTube as Google Video? You got something against Google or something?

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really that hard to understand? I think they want people to watch videos on GOOGLE VIDEO on GOOGLE.COM, not watch videos on YouTube. That way people see and have an easy path to their other offerings. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my theory.

[captZEEbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shocking. Google screwed the pooch on this one.

Meh. We're obeying the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm sure they knew they were going to do this before they even bought YouTube.

[/ QUOTE ]Yeah I find it really funny how everyone's two cents were, "Man Google is stupid for buying youtube when there's all these copyright lawsuits pending." Hey asshat, don't you think Google KNEW that there were lawsuits pending, and factored that into the value of the company.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just quote me saying they knew they were going to drop copyrighted material then respond as if I said they didn't know about copyright issues?

But yeah, I guess you're right. All acquisitions must be good cause the buying company can place an exact $ value on the major changes that they're going to make to the company they're buying.

[/ QUOTE ]bad use of quotes I guess (I was agreeing with you actually); but prior to google buying it, I heard from like 10 different places how google is going to be in a world of hurt after they aquire youtube b/c of lawsuits and I'm just somewhat dumbfounded. My comment was more of a general comment and not related to anything anyone in the thread said.

[Aloysius]

Jason - I'm not saying you're wrong (please reread my post).

Google will do what's in its best interests financially. So if this means repositioning the YouTube brand and folding it under the "Google Video" header, ok, they'll do that.

If you give me a reasonable argument why they would do this any time in the near future, I'm all ears. Currently, because the YouTube brand is so recognizable for video, it's in no danger of being jettisoned. Of course Google will try to exploit this brand as much as possible, linking to and from it via other Google sites. This is why they bought the company, as well as hoping to figure out the puzzle of monetizing this market.

I just don't understand why you are espousing this "theory" in this thread. I am going to requote my post:

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares if the slow transition is to rebrand YouTube as Google Video? You got something against Google or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

-Al

[JasonK]

[ QUOTE ]


I just don't understand why you are espousing this "theory" in this thread.



[/ QUOTE ]
Cause this is the Google buys YouTube thread. I could share my thoughts about it in another thread but the mods probably wouldn't like that.

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares if the slow transition is to rebrand YouTube as Google Video? You got something against Google or something?

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I care about Google destroying what made YouTube a great site and turning it into Google Video which isn't great. I have nothing against Google, in fact, their stock made me a bit of money.

[Aloysius]

... what has Google done in its corporate history that would lead you to believe that they would destroy what YouTube has done? What Google product / service are you getting screwed on exactly?

This is a transition phase for this marketplace. YouTube was too huge to not have massive legal exposure. They couldn't keep providing free content like this anwyay, and were already cutting deals with content providers. If you wanna blame Google for having to pay a sub-fee to YouTube or something, go right ahead, but it's more about an evolving business marketplace than Google being evil.

-Al

[JasonK]

What Google has done is take down 30k videos, and they're not done. I'll admit it, I want to watch copyrighted material for free. If I want to watch an old UFC fight, for example, I don't want to pay $2.99 to see it. They'll never be able to cut deals with every content provider. A lot of good content will just be gone.

[Aloysius]

Jason - YouTube, at some point or another, would have had to take down alot of videos whether or not Google bought them, is my point...

[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit it, I want to watch copyrighted material for free. If I want to watch an old UFC fight, for example, I don't want to pay $2.99 to see it. They'll never be able to cut deals with every content provider. A lot of good content will just be gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh - is that what you're so upset about? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Look, I love free stuff as much as the next guy. But the orgy of free online content / ease of sharing has been changing slowly for some time. Video is just up to bat right now. If anything you hate content providers much more than Google.

The interesting war is on the IP legal front / copyright infringement anyway. This quote from Cuban's blog sums it up nicely imo:

[ QUOTE ]
Am I suprised, by the Google YT deal. Yes. Does it open up a whole new world if they go liability free ?

You have no idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

-Al