YouTube Founders Interviewed 122
An anonymous reader writes: "FORTUNE's Adam Lashinsky interviews co-founders Steve Chen and Chad Hurley.
'In just five months, YouTube has gone from beta testing to part of the national zeitgeist. The website is a place where anyone with a home video can post it online and create an endlessly entertaining diversion for bored office workers -- who've been watching 40 million clips a day.'"
The only reason there are zero posts... (Score:3, Funny)
Fluff (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fluff (Score:4, Informative)
From what I most recently heard, they use a basic system where a copyright owner can object to a particular movie, and it's manually taken down by someone on their team. When a movie is taken down, their system also fingerprints the movie and automatically rejects any further submissions of movies with the same fingerprint.
Re:Fluff (Score:3, Informative)
If this is the case I can't imagine this system will last-- it's certainly not the copyright holder's responsibility to cruise YouTube to make sure no one is appropriating their works, an
Re:Fluff (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fluff (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, according to 17 USC 512 (c) [cornell.edu], it is in fact the copyright holder's responsibility. Copyright law has a special section regarding systems that allow users to upload content and spells out exactly how the system operators need to deal with it.
Re:Fluff (Score:2)
How would you honestly expect anyone (whether it is a site like youtube or a magazine printing copyrighted photos in ad copy) to know whether submitters held permission to use what they were submitting. It's kind of a pain for small companies that hold a lot of copyrights (like advertising photographers) but when they do find it, the court royalty damages if they dont agree to pay before court are quite good (and they levy the damages on the person who
Re:Fluff (Score:2)
It is the copyright holder's responsibility
Re:Fluff (Score:2)
Youtube have been removing a lot of Mixed Martial Arts videos at the request of Pride and UFC..
Does it change once they start making money? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the reason Google News doesn't have ads, after all - if they did, they'd run into legal issues (or so I've heard).
P.S. This is a pretty short article with only a bit of information - and it's vague info at that. What gives?
Re:Does it change once they start making money? (Score:1)
Re:Does it change once they start making money? (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new around here. You'll learn.
Re:Does it change once they start making money? (Score:2)
A little offtopic, but bootlegged Prince stuff is very popular, and I have a neat conspiracy-conspiracy theory to follow.
There is tons of "bootlegged" Prince stuff out there, and Prince freaks buy it just like they pay $300-$400 for tickets to see him every time he plays a live gig because they always sell out. The most infamous bootlegged album is "The Black Album" that came out in the late 80s. I knew a
Re:Does it change once they start making money? (Score:1)
A valid question and the answer (Score:2)
So they definitly ain't removing the stuff on their own. Granted the japanese do call Music Videos Promotional Videos instead and who would object to the freehosting of ads but still.
I think this stuff is too new for the copyright owners to have woken up yet. Just wait for it.
Re:A valid question and the answer (Score:2)
Where is the Interview??/ (Score:3, Insightful)
that is a lame interview and told us nothing more than we all already new (except that they work for paypal)
not trolling here just pointing out
Re:Where is the Interview??/ (Score:2)
Re:Where is the Interview??/ (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Where is the Interview??/ (Score:2)
200 TB / day
8.33 TB / hour
8529.92 GB / hour
142.165 GB / minute
2.369 GB / sec
18.952 Gbit / sec
19406.848 Mbit/Sec
Less than dual 10gigE
Since when does a 10gigE or OC-192 cost $500,000/month?
Some people have 12 mbit cable models for $40/month. This works out to about 1617 cable modems or about $64,689.49.
Bandwidth is probably cheaper in bulk.
Re:Where is the Interview??/ (Score:4, Insightful)
"Real" bandwidth has none of this BS. You get a SLA. You get an engineer on the phone when it breaks. You get a dedicated and provisioned port on a router. You can run it flat out at full duty cycle (100% utilization) continuously without any kind of "you've used too much" bullshit that residential ISPs like to pull. The speeds are synchronous and are contractually guaranteed, none of that "up to X mbps but sometimes much less because you have crappy wiring" stuff. Your equipment is stored in a location that has redundant power supplies, diesel generators, raised floors, heavy duty cooling, and sophisticated fire alarm/control systems.
"Real" bandwidth costs real money. The stuff you get with a cablemodem is not real bandwidth, and it appropriately costs only a fraction. When you realize the difference between the two you will realize that from a cost standpoint comparing what you get from your residential cable company to what a large site like youtube has to use, they are in totally and completely different leagues.
Re:Where is the Interview??/ (Score:2)
Re:Where is the Interview??/ (Score:1)
Re:Where is the Interview??/ (Score:1)
What is the cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
My request though, is to have full video controls on thier player. The same applies to Google Video by the way. Many a times, the videos simply need some light.
But many thanks to thier effort.
Re:What is the cost? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What is the cost? (Score:2)
Re:What is the cost? (Score:2)
1mil$ per month on bw. 11mil$ in venture funding (Score:2)
So says Leo Laporte's TWiT this past weekend.
I have 11mil$... I spend 1mil$ per month on bandwidth... how long
can I stay in business for assuming no additional funding...
Hedley
they have ads (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:they have ads (Score:2)
Re:What is the cost? (Score:2)
They have Google Ads now, but let's think about this anyway:
In a blog entry from January 9th they said they were serving over 45TB of videos per day [youtube.com]. If traffic is, say, $0.10 buck per GB, that's less than $2M per year. Plus the cost of its employees and the fact that they're probably serving even more video now and I'd say a reasonable estimate of their costs would be maybe $5
Re:What is the cost? (Score:2)
If I was a YouTube founder I'd sell and bail. But thats just me, and mostly because I have bills I need to pay and little money to pay them with right
Re:Thank you!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Honestly, how long do you expect no ads to carry on for? Three months time there'll be ads in front of videos, or memberships required to upload or get video of greater than a pathetic bitrate.
Re:Thank you!!! (Score:1)
I'm surprised YouTube works (Score:1, Interesting)
A site which abjures all DRM and which basically said instead "here, download this
Re:I'm surprised YouTube works (Score:1, Informative)
the site is popular BECAUSE it uses flash which allows for easy watching of short clips that would not be worth the time to download and play with a local decoding solution.
Re:I'm surprised YouTube works (Score:2)
Re:I'm surprised YouTube works (Score:1)
more popular to most of the web users than say....a site that says click here to play ?
Re:I'm surprised YouTube works (Score:1)
YouTube: Running a company like it's 1999. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a good time to be living off of VC money. It's fairly clear that many of them are being advised by underpants gnomes.
Re:YouTube: Running a company like it's 1999. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YouTube: Running a company like it's 1999. (Score:2)
That's one route, surely?
Re:YouTube: Running a company like it's 1999. (Score:2)
That being said, your idea is at least more creative and innovative than 'stick a 10 second ad in front of each video'.
Re:YouTube: Running a company like it's 1999. (Score:2)
Re:YouTube: Running a company like it's 1999. (Score:1)
Aeron Chairs! Get your Aeron Chairs! Foosball! Get (Score:2)
Note to self...
Step 1: Set up office across the street from YouTube headquarters.
Step 2: Offer a variety of Nerf toys, Foosball tables, Aeron Chairs, and assorted snacks.
Step 3: Profit! (Just don't accept any YouTube stock!)
Running a country like it's 1929. (Score:2)
One simple question: How does YouTube plan to make any money?
Mindless industry drone troll, 1929:
One simple question, Farnsworth [wikipedia.org]: How do you plan to make any money?
Re:YouTube: Running a company like it's 1999. (Score:2)
Google Video Search? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Google Video Search? (Score:2)
Also take into account that, while Google Video is still in beta, GV is not as feature-rich as YouTube. In all honestly, Google Video seems like a rushed product - rushed to market to claim at least some market share from YouTube. And it shows.
Anyway, I really think that YouTube has the upper hand - it shouldn't worry about Google Video (not for the moment, at least).
-WeAz
How do you search video? (Score:2)
Re:Google Video Search? (Score:2)
Mind you, youtube's search & subscription functions are NOT perfect.
For example, I have a subscription to the keyword "1980s" for any sort of 1980s nostalgia(music, tv shows,etc). If I do a serach of the latest videos that contain that, I often get hits that have nothing to do with the 80s, nor anything showing up for '1980s' in keywords. Yes, I get stupid crap videos from teenagers that should be friends only/private. But I don't m
YouTube and Linux Support (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope Google video supports Linux soon!
Re:YouTube and Linux Support (Score:3, Informative)
Google in fact has better support (Score:3, Informative)
So you can play it in a decent player with some filters to make it look good. The difference in quality (at least on linux) is staggering.
Youtube has the tagging wich makes it easier to find stuff.
Re:Google in fact has better support (Score:1)
Unfortunately both requires the use of non-Free software by streaming through Flash. Last I checked, there is still no 64-bit implementation of Flash.
Does google require flash? (Score:2)
Yes the in browser player is flash and is indeed evil and mean and nasty and kills puppies for fun.
But you can also just download it in several other formats. As I pointed out already. If you can't play any of the available movie formats. Well then that sucks. Serves you right for having a fancy CPU.
Flash on 64bit (Score:2)
Still, beats wasting time actually watching the movies :-)
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:Flash on 64bit (Score:1)
I've gone without Flash for quite some time now and I find the experience lifting. Gone are the days of (usually) colourful flashy things giving me eyesore! Most of the time they're either annoying or meaningless.
I suppose I'd rather not have a Flash plugin at all. Too bad for those Flash sites...
Re:Google in fact has better support (Score:2)
This is the killer feature for me. Youtube just doesn't have the bandwidth to be able to stream videos. I can't remember the last time I was able to watch a video on youtube without it pausing to catch up every few seconds. Google has a similar problem (albeit to a lesser extent). However, Google lets you download the video and watch it offline. That to me makes Google Video usable, and Youtube unusable. How it's managed to get the bulk of the
Re:Google in fact has better support (Score:2)
Just a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Could it really be that the VC's know this, and have decided that getting the name "YouTube" branded into young people's minds and associated with internet video is worth all the blown money?
Re:Just a matter of time (Score:2)
So really, what the venture capitalists are thinking of is spending all this money marketing a name that will eventually do something entirely different from what the site currently does.
(Partial) Substitute for Broadcast Entertainment.. (Score:4, Insightful)
While it would be naiive to suggest sites like youtube would fully replace entertainment developed for the masses, noticable audience share may be drawn away as Youtube & its ilk not only radically drop the transaction costs of (short) video entertainment but, more importantly, provide search and rating capability .
For example, which is more likely to provide a solid hour of laughs: watching an hour of Saturday Night Live and hope for two or three funny scetches, or searching YouTube for a dozen bits of comedy that have been highly rated?
Re:(Partial) Substitute for Broadcast Entertainmen (Score:2)
Heres my question (Score:2, Funny)
Better codecs in the future? (Score:2)
Re:Better codecs in the future? (Score:3)
Considering the rate at which they're burning money on bandwidth, I'd imagine higher bitrate streams are unlikely.
Just a fad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just a fad. (Score:1)
i guess that's why myspace has so few visiters: all the ads.
How about a video of their server farm? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How about a video of their server farm? (Score:2)
Zeitgeist (Score:2)
Think Big Picture People (Score:4, Interesting)
Fact #1)The TV industry has changed from real productions to idiots with camera's (aka reality tv). By doing that alone, they've dropped the cost of creating a show to little more than a camera, a stupid idea and idiots.
Fact #2) Digital Cameras have gotten extremely cheap
Fact #3) There are millions of untapped idiots with their own camera's worldwide
By shoving reality tv down everyones throat, they've basically commoditized the creation of television content. YouTube is poised to make a killing, if just by putting basic ads on idiots doing stupid shit on camera, the same thing the tv companies do except over ip.
Already old media is feeling the force of podcasts, converting their existing shows to allow users to listen to what they want when they want it (and usually commercial free). It's only a matter of time before YouTube (or someone else) does the same to video. Keeping the clips short seems to be a good idea since most people don't have much of an attention span these days (if you've read this far, you're probably ahead of the curve).
Re:Think Big Picture People (Score:1)
Great point regarding "reality TV" as a precursor for "video blogs". I never thought of that, but it makes perfect sense.
However, the big question remains, how does YouTube intend to make money from all of this? Ads? Selling content (a la Google Video)?
As others have mentioned, the technology is easy, the hard part is a profitable logistics model that works.
Re:Think Big Picture People (Score:2)
Thanks
However, the big question remains, how does YouTube intend to make money from all of this? Ads? Selling content (a la Google Video)?
That's probably going to take something creative. I have no clue other than ads. All that matters is how the ads are done, it could be done very tactfully.
For example, people tag the hell out of these videos. All they need to do is write a channel en
Re:Think Big Picture People (Score:1)
a channel engine that will allow people to "tune in"
http://cartoons.joshthejenius.com/ [joshthejenius.com] (PHP/GPL2)
You can tell YouTube is already on a quest to remove these copyrighted goodies, but some of my fav's are still up. To their credit, this is easily one of the *laziest* API's I've ever worked with. Nice and easy (the way I like it).
http://www.youtube.com/dev [youtube.com]
So, absolutley, the tech is here and ready! Let's go free market! Let's get this show on the road!
Re:Think Big Picture People (Score:2)
I disagree. Reality TV is already rapidly dwindling, with only a few (Survivor, American Idol, etc.) remaining popular (did anyone actually watch Unanimous?) Quality actors like Hugh Laurie (House) and John C. McGinley (Scrubs) are creating a rennaisance in network television, reminiscent of the pre-reality tv era, when you could pay big bucks for talent and still turn a tidy profit (The Cosby Show, Friends, Seinfeld, etc.) The Reality TV fad is dead. Basing an entire revenue stream on it would be finan
Re:Think Big Picture People (Score:2)
I disagree. It is still in the process of being shoved in front of the people because it's cheap for them to produce. Ever wonder why so many new reality tv shows keep coming, but very few good tv shows are released?
Quality actors like Hugh Laurie (House) and John C. McGinley (Scrubs) are creating a rennaisance in network television, reminiscent of the
Tired (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Tired (Score:2)
Re:Tired (Score:2)
YouTube I find is limited (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:YouTube I find is limited (Score:2)
On the other hand, as others have noted, most YouTube videos are pretty low bit-rate and not that great for keeping around. Often with a little more work, you can find a higher bitrate version of the same video elsewhere on the net.
Re:YouTube I find is limited (Score:2)
The resulting file will play great with MPlayer and VLC and is fully seekable. I haven't tried any other players.
Re:YouTube I find is limited (Score:1)
Re:YouTube I find is limited (Score:2)
Re:YouTube I find is limited (Score:2)
Bandwidth costs - 1m/month (Score:4, Interesting)
This Week In Tech (TWIT) broadcast for this week (ep 53) mentioned a bandwidth cost of more than 1 million a month. That's peanuts to a network (or network affiliate), but considering their cash flow is investment derrived, they're going to have to do something - and FAST - or become the pets.com of the web 2.0 era.
I'm rooting for them because some of the material is fantastic, and I'm noting more sites using it for hosting videos for other sites and blogs - which I think is it's best case for being. I know my sites couldn't handle a slashdotting - and neither could my pocketbook - but youTube makes for a great video podcasting solution.
Brand identity is worth the initial drain. (Score:3, Interesting)
These guys, although apparently not evil (sure, they used to work for Paypal, but on the other hand, they used to work for Paypal) have already built up the user base and mind share to basically ensure that Youtube makes money whatever they end up doing to go "legit."
I think the most ingenius move of theirs so far is the embeddable player. How cool is it to be able to stick that little flash gadget right in your website/blog/myspace/whatever? And, once they do start running ads and things, each one of those embedded files will become a tiny branch of their revenue stream.
Re:Brand identity is worth the initial drain. (Score:2)
Heck, maybe after content is torn down from YouTube's servers because of blatant copyright violations, links to non-existent vi
I remember when people said.. (Score:1)
Another dot.com bust? (Score:1)
If only they'd let you upload flash... (Score:2, Interesting)
Let you upload your own
Why? Because then you could upload videos with your own interactivity added.
Yeah, but why? Because the internet is an interactive medium, and linear videos on it are as unsatisfying as early silent movies, which put actors against a theatrical backdrop. They haven't adjusted to the medium.
You mean like [insert name
How they make money (Score:1)
How interesting can voyeurism really be? (Score:1)