3 ms·

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

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.

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.