4 ms·

On its own youtube doesn't really make any money. It's only recently that its started to actually champion original content. (as in something approaching a tv s

On its own youtube doesn't really make any money. It's only recently that its started to actually champion original content. (as in something approaching a tv station. not just nut shots.) [http://www.quora.com/How-much-money-does-YouTube-make http://www.quora.com/How-much-money-does-YouTube-make] (granted not the best of sources) But we need to separate "value" from viable business. Twitter, unless it changes will go bankrupt. Its loosing around $160 million a /Quarter/ Value is a subjective thing, and can be manipulated to suit the needs of others. Earnings are meant to be empiric. If twitter was any other company, its stock would be worthless. If we take a look at the buisness model of youtube: o Collect all video o Flog adverts on those videos o only take down copyright when notified. o Sign deals to distribute promo material. o Force small producers into exclusive deals with google at discount rates. The signal to noise ration of profit making videos to not is terrible. I suspect that 99% of all videos uploaded to youtube are useless and have less than 100views. (https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-GB/statistics.html https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-GB/statistics.html) Without the backing of an extremely profitable company such as google, youtube would have failed. I'd assume it would have been sued out of existence, and if it didn't it'd have died under the infrastructure bills (they basically have free bandwidth and CDN)

7952 12y ago
It strikes me that Youtube compete in several different distinct markets... * Camcorder like footage of friends and family (competition with Facebook). * Music videos (requires expensive licencing deals, competition with Spotify etc). * TV/Films (competition with Netflix, Hulu etc). Youtube has just turned into infrastructure rather than a service or community. It is more like a piece of the OS that is massively useful in a general sense, but not tuned to a particular use. The underlying technology (video that works) is just not special any more. Without help from Google maybe they would have focused on one market and becoming something different.
coldtea 12y ago
>On its own youtube doesn't really make any money. It's only recently that its started to actually champion original content. (as in something approaching a tv station. not just nut shots.) Maybe, but the first statement ("doesn't make any money") and the second ("only recently champions original content") have no logical connection whatsoever. The could be making (or losing) billions with the existing videos they have. Making or championing "original content" is totally irrelevant to their money-making. >* I suspect that 99% of all videos uploaded to youtube are useless and have less than 100views. (https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-GB/statistics.html)* https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-GB/statistics.html)* They just take disk space then, which is cheap and unimportant.
- KaiserPro 12y ago
  Probably should have read: >On its own youtube doesn't really make any money. It's only recently that its started to actually champion original content. (as in something approaching a tv station. not just nut shots.) in an attempt to drive up advertising revenue.
Retric 12y ago
YouTube was a long term play, 10 years ago storage and bandwidth costs where far higher, and 10 years from now there going to be lower still. Sure, HD video did increase there costs, but an HD video in 2015 is cheaper than a SD video when they started out. More importantly there not paying for most of there content making the long term outlook vary favorable.
wampus 12y ago
Sometimes I think of Youtube as a modern Library of Alexandria[1], a repository of knowledge that could only exist through patronage and containing a sizable amount of resources that are valuable in their uniqueness. A failed YouTube would represent a loss of equally epic and/or mythical proportions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
- kamakazizuru 12y ago
  I think you're mixing up what YouTube does and what Wikipedia does..
  - Zirro 12y ago
    YouTube holds a lot of unique content, documenting current times and events as they were happening. Given YouTubes relatively short existence, this is not obvious to everyone yet, but given just ten more years it will already start to provide an interesting glimpse into the lives of the people of the past. Imagine if we would have had the same insight about the people living in earlier centuries. Instead of us having to read about them in books, they could show it to us themselves. I believe the Internet Archive (https://www.archive.org https://www.archive.org) along with sources such as YouTube, provided they survive, will be considered the most important to get insights into the lives of the common people for future generations.
- Zirro 12y ago
  > A failed YouTube would represent a loss of equally epic and/or mythical proportions. Indeed. While most people may not realize until it is too late, my hope is that there are people out there working on plans to rescue large amounts of data from companies that may fail. Whether they be the government, wealthy individuals or organizations such as the Internet Archive, it would be a tragedy if all of this history was lost simply due to the financial failure of the company hosting the service.
- task_queue 12y ago
  An internet soapbox for anyone with a camera is hardly comparable to the concentration of written knowledge, skill and talent that is any library ever.

7952 12y ago

It strikes me that Youtube compete in several different distinct markets... * Camcorder like footage of friends and family (competition with Facebook). * Music videos (requires expensive licencing deals, competition with Spotify etc). * TV/Films (competition with Netflix, Hulu etc). Youtube has just turned into infrastructure rather than a service or community. It is more like a piece of the OS that is massively useful in a general sense, but not tuned to a particular use. The underlying technology (video that works) is just not special any more. Without help from Google maybe they would have focused on one market and becoming something different.

coldtea 12y ago

>On its own youtube doesn't really make any money. It's only recently that its started to actually champion original content. (as in something approaching a tv station. not just nut shots.) Maybe, but the first statement ("doesn't make any money") and the second ("only recently champions original content") have no logical connection whatsoever. The could be making (or losing) billions with the existing videos they have. Making or championing "original content" is totally irrelevant to their money-making. >* I suspect that 99% of all videos uploaded to youtube are useless and have less than 100views. (https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-GB/statistics.html)* https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-GB/statistics.html)* They just take disk space then, which is cheap and unimportant.

KaiserPro 12y ago
Probably should have read: >On its own youtube doesn't really make any money. It's only recently that its started to actually champion original content. (as in something approaching a tv station. not just nut shots.) in an attempt to drive up advertising revenue.

Retric 12y ago

YouTube was a long term play, 10 years ago storage and bandwidth costs where far higher, and 10 years from now there going to be lower still. Sure, HD video did increase there costs, but an HD video in 2015 is cheaper than a SD video when they started out. More importantly there not paying for most of there content making the long term outlook vary favorable.

wampus 12y ago

Sometimes I think of Youtube as a modern Library of Alexandria[1], a repository of knowledge that could only exist through patronage and containing a sizable amount of resources that are valuable in their uniqueness. A failed YouTube would represent a loss of equally epic and/or mythical proportions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

kamakazizuru 12y ago
I think you're mixing up what YouTube does and what Wikipedia does..
- Zirro 12y ago
  YouTube holds a lot of unique content, documenting current times and events as they were happening. Given YouTubes relatively short existence, this is not obvious to everyone yet, but given just ten more years it will already start to provide an interesting glimpse into the lives of the people of the past. Imagine if we would have had the same insight about the people living in earlier centuries. Instead of us having to read about them in books, they could show it to us themselves. I believe the Internet Archive (https://www.archive.org https://www.archive.org) along with sources such as YouTube, provided they survive, will be considered the most important to get insights into the lives of the common people for future generations.
Zirro 12y ago
> A failed YouTube would represent a loss of equally epic and/or mythical proportions. Indeed. While most people may not realize until it is too late, my hope is that there are people out there working on plans to rescue large amounts of data from companies that may fail. Whether they be the government, wealthy individuals or organizations such as the Internet Archive, it would be a tragedy if all of this history was lost simply due to the financial failure of the company hosting the service.
task_queue 12y ago
An internet soapbox for anyone with a camera is hardly comparable to the concentration of written knowledge, skill and talent that is any library ever.