I'm with the parent poster. The myths are not busted until some hard facts come out. There are artful ways to say true things that make the reader jump to conc

I'm with the parent poster. The myths are not busted until some hard facts come out. There are artful ways to say true things that make the reader jump to conclusions that they intend, but are false. For instance, by claiming that they are in a position that growth is good, they make us think they are making profit per view, but that isn't what they said. They could have any number of non-profitable reasons to like growth, like strategic market share or building a huge content database. Further, their refutation that advertisers are not afraid of YouTube may lead some readers to conclude that 70% of Ad Age Top 100 Marketers are paying YouTube directly, whereas many (most?) are not. They are either using YouTube as part of a social media campaign or advertising within some user content hosted on YouTube. It's not clear at all what's happening on their balance sheet, so speculation will continue. To what end, I don't know, but after "What is Twitter's business model?", guessing how much money YouTube burns a year is the Valley's favourite party game. ;)