3 ms·
Ha. Your naiveté is cute. This deal is all about buying out the competition. It's not about streaming. Youtube could have streaming if they wanted to, without t
by Afforess 12y ago
Ha. Your naiveté is cute. This deal is all about buying out the competition. It's not about streaming. Youtube could have streaming if they wanted to, without the 1B.
- pas 12y agoYoutube has streaming. Also probably a bit different target audience and market. Plus, it's likely that they'll just make the sadfucked G+ a requirement and be done with it, no mucking with what works.
- free2rhyme214 12y agoExactly. It's about owning the market and removing a potential competitor who saps money from YouTube. It's a smart move for Google.
- azakai 12y agoAnd a bad move for the users.
- kevinwang 12y agoYoutube actually already has streaming, to further prove your point.
- chongli 12y agoIf people aren't able to continue streaming their favourite game on Twitch after the acquisition, they will go somewhere else and Youtube will have gained nothing from the deal. It makes absolutely zero sense to buy out a competitor just to drive all their users to a different competitor.
- alandarev 12y agoMicrosoft did this all the time to protect it's Office, and it worked. I do not think this is meaningless, not very efficient, but gigants can sacrifice efficiency if it helps save their primary revenue.
- mikeleeorg 12y agoI was thinking more of the market and audience of Twitch. Technology is not a barrier for Google/YouTube. And they could certainly vie for the Twitch audience with a similar product. But Twitch definitely has a head start. So whether it be for removing a competitor and/or entering a new market, my point is I think a company like Google would have considered copyright issues before doing something like this.