3 ms·

Where is the actual data for these articles? Does anyone have a link to the actual figures Credit Suisse put together, with explanations as to where the figures

by axod 18y ago

Where is the actual data for these articles? Does anyone have a link to the actual figures Credit Suisse put together, with explanations as to where the figures came from?

mattmaroon 18y ago
http://www.multichannel.com/article/191223-YouTube_May_Lose_470_Million_In_2009_Analysts.php http://www.multichannel.com/article/191223-YouTube_May_Lose_... As with all analyst estimates, you can't totally bank on accuracy, but I'd have a hard time believing they're far off.
- jim-greer 18y ago
  Really? I bet they are way, way off. "To arrive at the estimated $360 million bandwidth tab for YouTube, the analysts assumed the site will receive 375 million unique visitors in 2009 and that a maximum of 20% of those users are on the site at any given time." There's no way 20% of visitors are streaming video simultaneously. I doubt it's even 1%. Kongregate maxes out at about 0.5% of its monthly uniques connected to chat at once.
  - qeorge 18y ago
    http://www.answers.com/maximum http://www.answers.com/maximum
- angstrom 18y ago
  Spouting speculative bullshit seems to be the cheapest way to create news. Same website, but other end of the spectrum speculating YouTube will make $500 Million: http://www.businessinsider.com/analyst-youtube-revenues-will-hit-500-million-this-year-2009-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/analyst-youtube-revenues-will...
- tomsaffell 18y ago
  OK, here goes some back-of-the envelope math (risky business in this group, so looking forward to hearing what I'm doing wrong..). Where I have made assumptions, I have erred on the side of 'expensive', i.e. this should be an upper bound estimate: 75,000,000,000 streams/year 400 kbps (average bw) average stream length: 300 s (stream length, not video length, highball estimate) -> BW/year = 1.13e9 GB/year 0.1 $/GB (BW cost, based on AWS S3 prices, again a highball) -> BW cost ~= $113m / year Only 1/3 of the estimated amount, and I'm not taking account of any clever stuff YT do to lower the costs. What gives? Is this a peak BW issue?
  - axod 18y ago
    >> 0.1 $/GB (BW cost, based on AWS S3 prices, again a highball) I'd say that's insanely high. I've heard for large amounts of traffic you can get 1TB for $8 - instead of $100.
    - abstractbill 18y ago
      Agreed, but tomsaffell's point is that even with these insanely high assumptions, the cost is still a lot lower than the number from the article.
      - axod 18y ago
        Right. Perhaps the article is assuming the cost of bandwidth is the same cost you pay for SMS or something ;)
- axod 18y ago
  Yeah that's another article claiming "According to a credit suisse report". I can't see the actual report anywhere...
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Analysts usually like to charge for that stuff, which means not publishing it freely.
    - abstractbill 18y ago
      Why should we trust the analysis at all then? I certainly don't.

by axod 18y ago

Where is the actual data for these articles? Does anyone have a link to the actual figures Credit Suisse put together, with explanations as to where the figures came from?

mattmaroon 18y ago

http://www.multichannel.com/article/191223-YouTube_May_Lose_470_Million_In_2009_Analysts.php http://www.multichannel.com/article/191223-YouTube_May_Lose_... As with all analyst estimates, you can't totally bank on accuracy, but I'd have a hard time believing they're far off.

jim-greer 18y ago
Really? I bet they are way, way off. "To arrive at the estimated $360 million bandwidth tab for YouTube, the analysts assumed the site will receive 375 million unique visitors in 2009 and that a maximum of 20% of those users are on the site at any given time." There's no way 20% of visitors are streaming video simultaneously. I doubt it's even 1%. Kongregate maxes out at about 0.5% of its monthly uniques connected to chat at once.
- qeorge 18y ago
  http://www.answers.com/maximum http://www.answers.com/maximum
angstrom 18y ago
Spouting speculative bullshit seems to be the cheapest way to create news. Same website, but other end of the spectrum speculating YouTube will make $500 Million: http://www.businessinsider.com/analyst-youtube-revenues-will-hit-500-million-this-year-2009-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/analyst-youtube-revenues-will...
tomsaffell 18y ago
OK, here goes some back-of-the envelope math (risky business in this group, so looking forward to hearing what I'm doing wrong..). Where I have made assumptions, I have erred on the side of 'expensive', i.e. this should be an upper bound estimate: 75,000,000,000 streams/year 400 kbps (average bw) average stream length: 300 s (stream length, not video length, highball estimate) -> BW/year = 1.13e9 GB/year 0.1 $/GB (BW cost, based on AWS S3 prices, again a highball) -> BW cost ~= $113m / year Only 1/3 of the estimated amount, and I'm not taking account of any clever stuff YT do to lower the costs. What gives? Is this a peak BW issue?
- axod 18y ago
  >> 0.1 $/GB (BW cost, based on AWS S3 prices, again a highball) I'd say that's insanely high. I've heard for large amounts of traffic you can get 1TB for $8 - instead of $100.
  - abstractbill 18y ago
    Agreed, but tomsaffell's point is that even with these insanely high assumptions, the cost is still a lot lower than the number from the article.
    - axod 18y ago
      Right. Perhaps the article is assuming the cost of bandwidth is the same cost you pay for SMS or something ;)
axod 18y ago
Yeah that's another article claiming "According to a credit suisse report". I can't see the actual report anywhere...
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Analysts usually like to charge for that stuff, which means not publishing it freely.
  - abstractbill 18y ago
    Why should we trust the analysis at all then? I certainly don't.