Google in Talks to Buy YouTube

tessaiga writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google is in talks to buy YouTube for about $1.6 billion. YouTube users watch more that 100 million videos daily, and the site's market share tops that of similar services offered by Google and other popular Web sites. This comes after a story earlier this morning that co-founder Sergey Brin is pushing for Google to cut back on the volume of products being offered, complaining that 'I was getting lost in the sheer volume of the products we were releasing'. Guess Google Video is one of the products making the approved shortlist."

But they couldn't solve our puzzles!

What do you want to bet that the programmers at YouTube would have never made it through Google's interview process?

Re:But they couldn't solve our puzzles!

Why is this 'funny'? 'Insightful' is more like it. Youtube is a piece of technological crap, yet it meets a social need. Much like MySpace. And both are wildly popular. Yet Slashdot persists in its belief that programming is the center of the universe.

Re:But they couldn't solve our puzzles!

YouTube is another one of those oddities. Like MySpace. Or VHS even. None of them are best in class, but they achieved a critical mass and took it from there.

Stuff I hate about YouTube:

1.) Takes forever to load some videos. Google Video is lightening fast.
2.) Can't really shift to a point on the timeline. Unlike Google Video, it can't seem to pick up midstream. What's the point of even giving the user the option to move the timeline if you can't stream from that point?
3.) Sometimes you leave comments and they aren't saved.
4.) Regardless if the comments save or not, the page will completely refresh restarting the video. (No problem, you think -- I'll just fast forward to where I was. Wait, can't do that).
5.) Sometimes pages flat out won't load. View the historic pages for stuff like "most popular video" and you'll sometimes see this.

Not to mention the UI guys look like they threw up all over the screen, and the general content (like Google Video) is lacking. If you see one dumbass 14-year old kick someone in the crotch, you've seen them all. (On a sidenote, who are these teenagers that have all day to kick people in their crotch).

I'm hoping one of these days people will realize, just like Tamagotchies, pet rocks and the Tubthumping song, that the only reason sites like YouTube and MySpace prevade culture are because they're popular. It has nothing to do with great content or inherently good design. All you need nowadays apparently is crap code and a userbase willing to kick people in the crotch.

Re:But they couldn't solve our puzzles!

who are these teenagers that have all day to kick people in their crotch

uh, These guys [imdb.com]

I'm hoping one of these days people will realize, just like Tamagotchies, pet rocks and the Tubthumping song, that the only reason sites like YouTube and MySpace prevade culture are because they're popular. It has nothing to do with great content or inherently good design.

Tell that to Craig's list as well. It's not 'how pretty', or 'technically advanced' a website is but how many people look at it, and how many people use it for what they want to present, even if it most of it isn't great, some stuff does shine (or at least funny as hell). Sure there are technical problems with YouTube, but they have the eyeballs, and the Google engineers should be able to fix it up quicker than anyone else.

Re:But they couldn't solve our puzzles!

Let's keep in mind that Google Video doesn't even allow you to post comments.

Incorrect! The comment feature is still labeled as new, but it's been available for a while now. Look on the right side of the page, below the download button and the description of the video. There's a list of links, "Playlist - Details - From user - Related - Comments[New!] - Flag as inappropriate".

This story

This story bring whole new meaning to nothing to see here :)

Google's a moron?

I didn't expect [slashdot.org] that!

I don't understand why they need to.

Surely they'd only be buying the YouTube name. Google has way more hardware, and an already succesful video product out there. Maybe they are trying to eliminate the competition, and get the ad revenue all for themselves. Is YouTube really worth that much to them though?

Re:I don't understand why they need to.

I just made this sam argument to a co-worker. If google buys them, they keep the name and start dumping the copy-protected matierial. They can keep the "trusted" brand and then use it to push TV/Movies that you can buy... Apple has iPod/iTunes, MS has Zune/WMP, and Google needs something if they want to compete here.

My money has Google and MS getting slaughtered by Apple here.

Re:I don't understand why they need to.

My money has Google and MS getting slaughtered by Apple here.

Google is too smart to walk right into a battle with Apple. My guess is they will try to seek some mutually beneficial arrangement with Apple. Don't forget this [apple.com].

The new name.

They plan to call it "GooTube."

You don't want to know what the new logo looks like.

Re:The new name.

Lol. Goo in my first language means "shit". So how would you like to view shittube?

I already have a television, thanks.

Re:I don't understand why they need to.

Is YouTube really worth that much to them though?

Maybe their "Don't be evil" clause also means keeping YouTube out of the hands of Newscorp.

Well

Its funny how every day the lines between google and microsoft blur. If microsoft tried this an unholy hell would be released..

Yeah...

...it's amazing how not sucking works wonders for the way people interpret your actions and qualify the possible repercussions.

Re:Yeah...

MS-DOS didn't suck too badly compared to CP/M.

Xenix didn't such compared to other UNIXes.

OS/2 didn't suck, and neither did Windows NT next to desktop UNIX or DR-DOS+GEM

Microsoft Word 2 didn't suck next to any of its competition.

Microsoft have released more products that don't suck than Google (although, to be fair, I suspect most of us have been forced to use more of the ones that do suck). Google search has gone downhill a lot in recent months; I'm frequently finding searches fail to return any useful information, or if they do it's buried on page 3-4 of the results. Google is a young company, and they haven't had the time to screw up as badly as MS yet.

It makes sense...

Google Video is probably the first example that comes to mind of the emergent Yet Another Half-Baked Google Technology phenomenon. By buying YouTube, they get a best-of-breed player on their side without diverting more in-house R&D resources. Given their (Google's) cash reserves, it's the right thing to do.

compared to myspace

IMO, this offer really seems to add credibility to the "myspace sale was a scam" [slashdot.org] theory.

Isn't it up to the programmers?

"cut back on the volume of products being offered"

Didn't we learn last week that you can work on anything you want at Google?

Only a moron...

Gotta love the related story on this one. Only a moron would buy Youtube, indeed.

YouTube links are the only "You gotta see this." links that I get that I actually open on occassion. I think Google is making a great move here, if it's true. Given the other recent story about Google allowing google home page elements to be posted in websites, YouTube is a natural eyeball catcher to pull in people off personal websites.

Summarize This Story In A Short, Crusty Video!

I can't pass this link around to my friends -- the1r elliturit.

In other news ...

In other news, Google has voted successfully to change the company's motto from "Don't be Evil" to "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!"

Yeah, right.

How'd that yahoo-facebook deal [slashdot.org] go? Not a single verification of the story in 2 weeks?

Whaddya know. Not all rumors are true. Last time, it was 'industry executives', this time it's 'a person familiar with the matter'.

It fits with search

Being the big gorilla when it comes to a repository of videos fits with their strategy of doing search well - having all media (and related searches) at their fingertips will really help them propel that aspect of their business forward. I totally agree with Sergey. While I can see why they might want to release spreadsheets and word processing to compete with MS / Office, having all those products doesn't help them do what they do best. I think they should stick with their core strength - improving the way people find stuff. Diversifying too much will just leave them open to be dropped like so many SEs of the past (Altavista, etc.)

Lawyers Wet Dream

What, didn't Googles legal team already have enough work with the on-line book thing?

Moo

from the dogs-and-cats-living-together-mass-hysteria dept.

What? It hasn't even been a year since the last time [slashdot.org].

Oh my.

Morons.

I always said google were "morons".. Great big, Filthy rich, billionaire morons.

Do you GoogleTube

or do youTube your Google

solves more than one problem

Not only do the YouTube owners get $1.6 billion for their organization, but they also get out of the recent copyright allegations [slashdot.org].

Copyright

Well a few things here
1. Google is buying out their biggest rival in google video, by adding the huge library and viwership, google video will be the place to go for anything related to videos online and give the already high traffic on google related services a boost

2. But it still doesn't solve the copyright problems google is going to face with RIAA and MPAA

3. This tatic (buying out competitor) sounds a lot like something MS would do, is this a sign that google is finally in a stage of major corporation like MS?

Am i the only one who thinks this makes sense?

Google video may be the technically superior service, but it is almost completely lacking in social interaction. Youtube encourages you to have a vlog, to post video responses etc. Google video (at least from the standpoint of a Youtube user) is a little cold.

Google may well have the hardware, but they've a lot to learn about what makes a site popular. Myspace has to be one of the ugliest sites around yet its popularity is ever soaring because it is social. Google video just is not.

At the end of the day, Youtube is synonymous with the online video hosting/sharing community and that is what Google are paying £850 million for. That and the ability to integrate with existing Google products (Google calendar & vlog combined? That's some powerful stuff right there.)

Mark Cuban Is Right

Last week Mark Cuban made comments along the line that anyone that buys YouTube is insane. His reasoning was that YouTube is going to get hammered with copyright lawsuits once someone that can pay out buys the company. I really think he's correct. I don't know how many copyrighted news stories, etc, I've watched on YouTube but it's a lot.

Uh oh..

Google look like their joining that happy band of companies that grew so big and had so much cash burning a hole in their pocket that they started buying insane companies for insane prices.
1. Invent Google algorithm
2. Invent Adsense
3. Profit!
4. Profit!
5. Buy loss making company for huge amount of money
6. No more profit!

We will combine our forces and...

collect all the videos ever made of young girls dancing around and lip synching to POP songs.

Obvious

This is one buyout that doesn't surprise me at all. Google put a lot into Google video, and just as it opened up, YouTube's popularity exploded, stealing Google video's thunder. Personally I think Google is to blame for the failure of Google video-by requiring users to upload via software instead of the web, they added in one more step, which is one step too many for the masses of people out there who can barely manage to compose a movie with the tools that come in the OS.

So now Google's about to spend 1.7 billion to make up for a really dumb mistake. I can't say I agree, but I'm definitely not surprised.

Good for Apple?

Weren't there some (probably unsubstantiated) rumors floating around about iTV having direct access to Google Video? If so, Steve must be rubbing his hands together in glee about this. :)

Google vs. YouTube analysis

YouTube is definitely a more intensely used product than Google Video. The data shows this. Google Video received a quick boost in traffic after they added the "Video" link to their homepage, but all other performance indicators are flat for them. More people visit YouTube, they come back to the site more often, and spend more time on the site each time they visit. Take a look at our YouTube vs Google Video analysis at (posted yesterday):

http://blog.compete.com [compete.com]

Just imagine a service that tightly integrated all the great stuff being created and submitted on YouTube, with their Orkut social networking platform (popular abroad), with Dodgeball mobile features thrown in + targeted contextual adverts.

Why all the YouTube hate?

Google uses the flash player too so I'm suprised so many people are dissing on YouTube. Im the first person to jump on myspace hate or microsoft hate but this one doesn't make any sense to me.

Quicktime/WMP/etc are all horrible from what I've seen. Half the time some codec I apparently don't have screws up everything for quicktime. WMP is a lost cause. Don't even get me started on Real.

Google's setup is good but the size of their videos is pathetically small compared to YouTube. So I find myself wondering if everyone thinks YouTube is so horrible what service is supposed to do the job of video hosting better?

Mark Cuban eat your heart out

If Google purchases Youtube they would be able to capitilize more of the advertising market.

Google likely just wants YouTube's name

People think of the YouTube name first in video. How many people even realize Google is a source for video? I didn't realize it, but Google is hosting the national archives, and has a variety of other 'serious' content up.

If Google did buy out YouTube, it could simply rebrand its Google Video site with YouTube icons and the MySpace kids wouldn't even notice.

Google faces significant risks from rushing in behind YT, because Google has money and is eminently suable. They can't afford to simply let copywrite material fly, because the studios will attack them just as newspapers and book publishers already have.

A RoughlyDrafted Magazine article looking at Apple's iTV, and why Apple is in deals with Google, explains more about why YouTube is such a mess and why big pockets will just make that mess more problematic:

Apple's iTV and Alternative Content: the future of podcasting, porn, indie media. [roughlydrafted.com]

The following article is getting high ratings as well, on how Apple is positioning the iTV as an extension of the iPod platform in casual gaming, living room Widgets, and interactive content, with a history on how Apple dropped the ball with HyperCard, how the web took over, and why Apple has something new to offer today :

iTV Interactive: The Apple Game Console [digg.com]

Why? It can't be for the engineering!

Google's move makes sense from a strategically defensive point of view. They don't want Microsoft or Yahoo to purchase YouTube, because that would give them a huge immediate advantage in terms of userbase.

As companies like Yahoo and Microsoft are built upon the "lock-em-in" strategy, that could effectively nullify Google's "out-innovate-and-perform" strategy which otherwise would slowly beat YouTube by attrition.

Therefore, it makes sense for Google to purchase YouTube purely for the immediate userbase. Otherwise, it might take a few years for the "lock-em-in" ploy to start deteriorating, which would just set the entire industry back in terms of actual benefit and usability of the internet for video-on-demand.

And yes, I do imply a certain degree of benevolence on the part of Google. Even though their accountants may say the deal isn't financially necessary or beneficial in the long run, I think they'd rather just not have to deal with yet another multi-year dismantling of another defective-by-design competitor in yet another sector.

Once again, hooray for Google!

I don't think this is a smart move...

I think that this is just a rumour and that it will not happen. It might be a ploy to drive up the bidding price by other companies that are actually looking at YouTube.

A few reasons why:

1. When was the last time Google spent a billion dollars on any takeover -- the answer, I think, is never. They've made small purchases here and there of $50-200M, but this would be the largest and most complex by far. (Unless the price being rumoured is wrong too, which is possible). Why rock the boat with large outside purchases?

2. The liability is HUGE. It just doesn't seem smart to me. Mark Cuban summed it up nicely last week, YouTube is a lawsuit waiting to happen. EVEN IF Google immediately axed the copywritten material (which itself is no easy task), they would STILL be liable for previous infringments! And how on earth is Google (or anyone) supposed to monitor new content for infringements? That's a LOT of manpower. Google has a lot of smart folks, but I don't think that even they would be able to automate that.

3. What's wrong with Google Video that can't be solved with a few programmers? Google has the ability to support Google Video in ways that it hasn't exploited yet. GoogleToolbar, GMail, Adwords and Adsense... all of those can be used to help promote Google Video when the time is right. Mind you, my point 2 about liability would apply to Google Video too.

Anyway, there's my prediction. YouTube will get sold someday for some outrageous sum, but my guess is that it'll go to someone with more media ties.

Didn't take long...

... for Google to go the Microsoft way : If you can't beat them, buy them!

Re:Republican shit

Yeah, modding me a troll clearly shows what a rational and well-reasoned basis there is for your ideology. You win at Internet, sir.

To be fair...

They have been removing a lot of the propaganda/snuff vids, but users have to find and flag them first. And they quickly get resubmitted under different names. From the NYT article linked on the blog:

In recent weeks, YouTube has removed dozens of the videos from its archives and suspended the accounts of some users who have posted them, a reaction, it said, to complaints from other users.

More than four dozen videos of combat in Iraq viewed by The New York Times have been removed in recent days, many after The Times began inquiries.

But many others remain, some labeled in Arabic, making them difficult for American users to search for. In addition, new videos, often with the same material that had been deleted elsewhere, are added daily.

It's unfortunate that this sort of thing happens, but it isn't fair to say YouTube (or Google, which the article also mentions) is therefore supporting Islamic fundamentalism. It's a problem of any "democratic" system: you have to find a fair way to moderate the hordes of jerks out there that have the same access as everyone else. The service wouldn't be as popular (or profitable) if they had to review each video before it's posted, and people will of course take advantage of that. Additional checks may be needed.

I also saw the removed MM video, and IIRC, it did intersperse a number of the "offensive" cartoon images between images of angry mobs. An important (American) conservative* value is that people have the right to express whatever idea they want, but no one is obligated to provide a forum or an audience for that expression.

*Not that it's an exclusively conservative value, of course.

Buyouts

Web companies always buying each other out. Often it is the end user that suffers. When one company buys the other, What happens to the users data and personal information is what I always ask myself. We already know Google never deletes anything, if even the users delete their personal information... WTF? At any rate: Web 3.0 = Only Google :-}