3 ms·

which should make the employee proud, and I'm sure Google is compensating them very, very well. let's also not forget that the people involved didn't create th

which should make the employee proud, and I'm sure Google is compensating them very, very well. let's also not forget that the people involved didn't create this in a vacuum. it cost Google a LOT more than their compensation to make it possible for them to even start working on this project, let alone carrying it forward to completion. people underestimate how hard and expensive it is to manage a company in a way that allows its employees to do a good job.

kqr 2y ago
> let's also not forget that the people involved didn't create this in a vacuum. it cost Google a LOT more than their compensation to make it possible for them to even start working on this project ...let's also not forget that Google didn't manufacture this opportunity in a vacuum. It cost the rest of society a lot more than their revenue to make it possible for them to employ people who can spend their entire days working on software.
- rmbyrro 2y ago
  Didn't it cost society to raise us to adulthood so that we can work for Google and other businesses? How many people have sacrificed their time and attention, directly or indirectly, to our benefit, since we were born? Yet, nobody's saying our salaries aren't deserved or the merit of our own efforts.
  - daelon 2y ago
    I think many people are explicitly saying that.
velcrovan 2y ago
> it cost Google a LOT more than their compensation to make it possible for them to even start working on this project The actual "not a vacuum" context here is an environment that has been basically printing money for google for the last twenty years. It did not "cost" them anything. It's fine to acknowledge that the people who built google, however well paid they are, are creating vastly more value than they are personally receiving.
- rmbyrro 2y ago
  If it costs nothing, why don't we both get together and build a money-printing machine as well? You say like it's something easy anyone can get done. Have you ever tried? If you try to build a sustainable and successful business, you'll see how hard it is.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    To be fair, Google didn’t found YouTube.
    - rmbyrro 2y ago
      And Youtube wouldn't last long on its own. Regarding infra, they were not capable of reaching the scale they needed and were already struggling by the time they got acquired. On the money side, they couldn't attract advertisers as well as Google.
      - aspenmayer 2y ago
        My point was that for whatever reason(s), Google chose to buy YouTube, while continuing to work on Google Video (which was started the month before YouTube), instead of buying a different competitor. Given that YouTube was founded by 3 PayPal alums and was angel investor funded while being one of the top most visited sites at the time of its acquisition by Google, I am inclined to believe that their issues you mentioned above and others not mentioned would have been resolved in-house, via their partnership with Google Video or another company, or via acquisition by another company. I don’t think it’s likely that YouTube would have failed as a company with the founders and investors it had, such as Sequoia, as it was simply too popular. YouTube had already started running ads for ~9 months before acquisition, though they were initially against pre-roll and other site-wide ads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube > Participatory video ads were designed to link specific promotions to specific channels rather than advertising on the entire platform at once. When the ads were introduced, in August 2006, YouTube CEO Chad Hurley rejected the idea of expanding into areas of advertising seen as less user-friendly at the time, saying, "we think there are better ways for people to engage with brands than forcing them to watch a commercial before seeing content. You could ask anyone on the net if they enjoy that experience and they'd probably say no." However, YouTube began running in-video ads in August 2007, with preroll ads introduced in 2008.

kqr 2y ago

> let's also not forget that the people involved didn't create this in a vacuum. it cost Google a LOT more than their compensation to make it possible for them to even start working on this project ...let's also not forget that Google didn't manufacture this opportunity in a vacuum. It cost the rest of society a lot more than their revenue to make it possible for them to employ people who can spend their entire days working on software.

rmbyrro 2y ago
Didn't it cost society to raise us to adulthood so that we can work for Google and other businesses? How many people have sacrificed their time and attention, directly or indirectly, to our benefit, since we were born? Yet, nobody's saying our salaries aren't deserved or the merit of our own efforts.
- daelon 2y ago
  I think many people are explicitly saying that.

velcrovan 2y ago

> it cost Google a LOT more than their compensation to make it possible for them to even start working on this project The actual "not a vacuum" context here is an environment that has been basically printing money for google for the last twenty years. It did not "cost" them anything. It's fine to acknowledge that the people who built google, however well paid they are, are creating vastly more value than they are personally receiving.

rmbyrro 2y ago
If it costs nothing, why don't we both get together and build a money-printing machine as well? You say like it's something easy anyone can get done. Have you ever tried? If you try to build a sustainable and successful business, you'll see how hard it is.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  To be fair, Google didn’t found YouTube.
  - rmbyrro 2y ago
    And Youtube wouldn't last long on its own. Regarding infra, they were not capable of reaching the scale they needed and were already struggling by the time they got acquired. On the money side, they couldn't attract advertisers as well as Google.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      My point was that for whatever reason(s), Google chose to buy YouTube, while continuing to work on Google Video (which was started the month before YouTube), instead of buying a different competitor. Given that YouTube was founded by 3 PayPal alums and was angel investor funded while being one of the top most visited sites at the time of its acquisition by Google, I am inclined to believe that their issues you mentioned above and others not mentioned would have been resolved in-house, via their partnership with Google Video or another company, or via acquisition by another company. I don’t think it’s likely that YouTube would have failed as a company with the founders and investors it had, such as Sequoia, as it was simply too popular. YouTube had already started running ads for ~9 months before acquisition, though they were initially against pre-roll and other site-wide ads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube > Participatory video ads were designed to link specific promotions to specific channels rather than advertising on the entire platform at once. When the ads were introduced, in August 2006, YouTube CEO Chad Hurley rejected the idea of expanding into areas of advertising seen as less user-friendly at the time, saying, "we think there are better ways for people to engage with brands than forcing them to watch a commercial before seeing content. You could ask anyone on the net if they enjoy that experience and they'd probably say no." However, YouTube began running in-video ads in August 2007, with preroll ads introduced in 2008.