61 ms·

So basically the only reason they were considering YouTube was to either deny it to their competition, or force their competition to pay more for it. It sounds

So basically the only reason they were considering YouTube was to either deny it to their competition, or force their competition to pay more for it. It sounds like they expected it to die on a backroom shelf somewhere if they made the purchase. This seems anti-competitive behavior even during what might otherwise be viewed as their "don't be evil" phase. They didn't see it as valuable for their own needs, they just didn't want it to grow into competition itself or via another competitor and so considered buying it to let it die.

jasode 5y ago
>It sounds like they expected it to die on a backroom shelf somewhere if they made the purchase. This seems anti-competitive behavior [...] They didn't see it as valuable for their own needs, I think you're reading too much conspiracy motive into Larry's terse email. Based on various interviews, Susan Wojcicki was head of Google Video at the time and she acknowledged they were losing against the upstart Youtube. She originally thought Google Video would succeed because Google was "playing nice" by negotiating legal licenses with broadcasters like NBC whereas Youtube was just a bunch of pirated content. It was a big risk to acquire Youtube because the Viacom piracy lawsuit was looming. Google decided they could handle it and went ahead with the acquisition. They saw the value in Youtube and didn't have any intention of killing it.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  Actually it seems like gp is reading all the emails that came before Larry's
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Based on these emails, the very first consideration that sparked their interest-- no matter what came later-- was to deny it to their competition or drive up the price. Just because upon investigation, YouTube actually seemed to have some value does not negate the fact that their first motive was based upon limiting competition.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
simonh 5y ago
One of them wrote something like that, and seemed against the idea on that basis because there were other options Yahoo could go for. That was basically an argument for not doing the deal because it would only, maybe have those effects, but that wasn’t the opinion of the others. Ultimately that’s not why they bought them anyway. So no, not really.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Ultimately that’s not why they bought them anyway. So no, not really That's not relevant to the fact that limiting competition was their very first consideration. And other competitors were seen as lesser value because of their location, not to mention the fact that the reply to that argument was that just talking to them would still hurt competition by making any acquisition more expensive. Just because Google ultimately found YouTube to be valuable doesn't change the fact that their first motive was to limit competition.
wilsynet 5y ago
I think you’re mis-reading the thread. Jeff Huber says YouTube are cranking features, but their backend probably won’t scale and they don’t have good monetization. That ultimately ends up being what they do — after acquiring YouTube, they re-built it using Google’s distributed systems infrastructure and software. And the monetization model today is in fact (mostly) ads. What you then see in the thread is someone else saying: yeah we’re going to catch up, we just need a couple of more devs. And then the counterpoint that well, even if Google doesn’t end up doing it, at least it makes it harder for Yahoo. The original motivation isn’t just to make it harder for Yahoo. It’s that Huber wants to bring these people on board because they are really good at innovating, and Google can help make it really successful. But there was some pushback, and then other reasons were presented to continue with the conversation. At these companies (any company?), sometimes to get what you want you have to present a diverse set of reasons, even if only one of them is the principal reason why you want to do something. Note: I work for Google.
- capableweb 5y ago
  It seems fairly obvious that what the people are discussing in the linked email thread is anti competitive behavior. Here are some excerpts: > and were thinking about a acq with Yahoo > and it would be nice for y! not to have them > their content quality is worse than ours ... if we pick them up it would be defensive vs yahoo > I think we should talk to them, if nothing else to make it more expensive for Yahoo You don't make statements like that and then explain it with "It didn't seem like they would scale and we don't have enough devs". The decision on if the buy YouTube or not (or another video company), was clearly influenced by the "risk" of Yahoo buying the very same company.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    When does competition become anti-competitive? If I see a promising startup in my space with challenges ahead, it seems reasonable to consider many different angles, including whether I can help them succeed and whether a competitor could also help them succeed (or they could help a competitor). Given that Y! was considering buying YouTube, the probability that a similar set of emails was written on Yahoo’s end is approximately 1. IMO, that’s because they were also competing with Google. Is everyone in that market acting anti-competitively? What would that even mean (absent collusion)?

jasode 5y ago

>It sounds like they expected it to die on a backroom shelf somewhere if they made the purchase. This seems anti-competitive behavior [...] They didn't see it as valuable for their own needs, I think you're reading too much conspiracy motive into Larry's terse email. Based on various interviews, Susan Wojcicki was head of Google Video at the time and she acknowledged they were losing against the upstart Youtube. She originally thought Google Video would succeed because Google was "playing nice" by negotiating legal licenses with broadcasters like NBC whereas Youtube was just a bunch of pirated content. It was a big risk to acquire Youtube because the Viacom piracy lawsuit was looming. Google decided they could handle it and went ahead with the acquisition. They saw the value in Youtube and didn't have any intention of killing it.

bagacrap 5y ago
Actually it seems like gp is reading all the emails that came before Larry's
ineedasername 5y ago
Based on these emails, the very first consideration that sparked their interest-- no matter what came later-- was to deny it to their competition or drive up the price. Just because upon investigation, YouTube actually seemed to have some value does not negate the fact that their first motive was based upon limiting competition.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

simonh 5y ago

One of them wrote something like that, and seemed against the idea on that basis because there were other options Yahoo could go for. That was basically an argument for not doing the deal because it would only, maybe have those effects, but that wasn’t the opinion of the others. Ultimately that’s not why they bought them anyway. So no, not really.

ineedasername 5y ago
Ultimately that’s not why they bought them anyway. So no, not really That's not relevant to the fact that limiting competition was their very first consideration. And other competitors were seen as lesser value because of their location, not to mention the fact that the reply to that argument was that just talking to them would still hurt competition by making any acquisition more expensive. Just because Google ultimately found YouTube to be valuable doesn't change the fact that their first motive was to limit competition.

wilsynet 5y ago

I think you’re mis-reading the thread. Jeff Huber says YouTube are cranking features, but their backend probably won’t scale and they don’t have good monetization. That ultimately ends up being what they do — after acquiring YouTube, they re-built it using Google’s distributed systems infrastructure and software. And the monetization model today is in fact (mostly) ads. What you then see in the thread is someone else saying: yeah we’re going to catch up, we just need a couple of more devs. And then the counterpoint that well, even if Google doesn’t end up doing it, at least it makes it harder for Yahoo. The original motivation isn’t just to make it harder for Yahoo. It’s that Huber wants to bring these people on board because they are really good at innovating, and Google can help make it really successful. But there was some pushback, and then other reasons were presented to continue with the conversation. At these companies (any company?), sometimes to get what you want you have to present a diverse set of reasons, even if only one of them is the principal reason why you want to do something. Note: I work for Google.

capableweb 5y ago
It seems fairly obvious that what the people are discussing in the linked email thread is anti competitive behavior. Here are some excerpts: > and were thinking about a acq with Yahoo > and it would be nice for y! not to have them > their content quality is worse than ours ... if we pick them up it would be defensive vs yahoo > I think we should talk to them, if nothing else to make it more expensive for Yahoo You don't make statements like that and then explain it with "It didn't seem like they would scale and we don't have enough devs". The decision on if the buy YouTube or not (or another video company), was clearly influenced by the "risk" of Yahoo buying the very same company.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  When does competition become anti-competitive? If I see a promising startup in my space with challenges ahead, it seems reasonable to consider many different angles, including whether I can help them succeed and whether a competitor could also help them succeed (or they could help a competitor). Given that Y! was considering buying YouTube, the probability that a similar set of emails was written on Yahoo’s end is approximately 1. IMO, that’s because they were also competing with Google. Is everyone in that market acting anti-competitively? What would that even mean (absent collusion)?