4 ms·
It's less stupid than it looks. Back in the day there was Google Videos and YouTube. Technically speaking, both decent video hosting & streaming services for th
by fatherzine 4y ago
It's less stupid than it looks. Back in the day there was Google Videos and YouTube. Technically speaking, both decent video hosting & streaming services for the time. YouTube won the market and Google Videos is a forgotten footnote.
Q: If you are a Google C-suite executive in 2005, which video service do you bet on?
A: Give both Google Videos and YouTube a few years of runway and see which one demonstrates better traction.
- ahtihn 4y agoWasn't Youtube acquired after Google Videos was already created?
- lesuorac 4y agoNot just that but it was launched _after_ google videos (January 25, 2005 vs February 14, 2005) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube
- desmosxxx 4y agoHe's talking about music though. The fact that YouTube was able to start their own music app and then eat the Google brand - and then Sundar gives this as an example of efficiency. Missing the forest for the trees IMO. I would point to YouTube music (and movies/shows) as being one of Google's biggest mistakes (not because I loved Google music, but because YT music a confused product/brand and reduces revenue opportunities). The weak leadership at Google is certainly a inefficiency.