3 ms·

> Acquisition by Google is the only reason YouTube exists. If they had to pay for their networking they could not have survived (Google owns its own fiber and d

by tivert 8y ago

> Acquisition by Google is the only reason YouTube exists. If they had to pay for their networking they could not have survived (Google owns its own fiber and doesn't pay anyone for transit). Even if that's true (which I doubt), Google is not the only company that owns fiber. > If you are taking a consumer benefit angle I don't see how you conclude that Google should have been prevented from buying YouTube. The GP was talking about a "shift away" from the "'consumer welfare' view of anti-trust," because that view permits acquisitions like that of YouTube by Google.

ucaetano 8y ago
> Even if that's true (which I doubt), Google is not the only company that owns fiber. Would you rather have Verizon owning YouTube? Every single telco has tried to launch their own YT. They launched, and every single one of them failed. The reason they keep failing is that they are telcos, their core capabilities do not play well with an open, network agnostic, consumer-driven video service. They'll prioritize their own content and their own network (look at Verizon and "Oath"). If you "deleted" YouTube, and both Amazon, Google, Verizon, AT&T launched video services, which ones do you think would succeed? Definitely Google's, maybe Amazon's, definitely not Verizon's or AT&T's. Google happens to be a "third-party content access monetizing" company that owns infrastructure, not an infrastructure company trying to be a "third-party content access monetizing" company.
shereadsthenews 8y ago
Any legal theory under which it would have been better for Level3 to buy YouTube than it has been for Google to buy it is, IMHO, worth no further consideration.
nopriorarrests 8y ago
>> Acquisition by Google is the only reason YouTube exists. >Even if that's true (which I doubt) Literally one hour ago Alphabet CFO went thru some advanced mental gymnastics to avoid straight answers about youtube profitability: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19080868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19080868 - No youtube breakout of revenues, Again not a bullish sign for that division, stil nothing on youtube on the call. - EDIT on the earnings call they did talk briefly about Youtube, no real new numbers though, just their assurance that youtube is crushing it - Porat is doing gymnastics to talk about youtube but not actually say anything about youtube. Are youtbue numbers really that bad???? So, it seems that OP is mostly correct in his assumption. Normally CFO of public companies are not shy talking about their successful bets.

by tivert 8y ago

ucaetano 8y ago

> Even if that's true (which I doubt), Google is not the only company that owns fiber. Would you rather have Verizon owning YouTube? Every single telco has tried to launch their own YT. They launched, and every single one of them failed. The reason they keep failing is that they are telcos, their core capabilities do not play well with an open, network agnostic, consumer-driven video service. They'll prioritize their own content and their own network (look at Verizon and "Oath"). If you "deleted" YouTube, and both Amazon, Google, Verizon, AT&T launched video services, which ones do you think would succeed? Definitely Google's, maybe Amazon's, definitely not Verizon's or AT&T's. Google happens to be a "third-party content access monetizing" company that owns infrastructure, not an infrastructure company trying to be a "third-party content access monetizing" company.

shereadsthenews 8y ago

Any legal theory under which it would have been better for Level3 to buy YouTube than it has been for Google to buy it is, IMHO, worth no further consideration.

nopriorarrests 8y ago

>> Acquisition by Google is the only reason YouTube exists. >Even if that's true (which I doubt) Literally one hour ago Alphabet CFO went thru some advanced mental gymnastics to avoid straight answers about youtube profitability: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19080868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19080868 - No youtube breakout of revenues, Again not a bullish sign for that division, stil nothing on youtube on the call. - EDIT on the earnings call they did talk briefly about Youtube, no real new numbers though, just their assurance that youtube is crushing it - Porat is doing gymnastics to talk about youtube but not actually say anything about youtube. Are youtbue numbers really that bad???? So, it seems that OP is mostly correct in his assumption. Normally CFO of public companies are not shy talking about their successful bets.