What Could YouTube Be Worth? 139
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net has a story about the possible cost of YouTube. Sony just paid $65 Million for small-time videosharing outfit 'Grouper'. That site has around 1% of the videosharing market. The article asks, at that price, what might YouTube's 43% be worth?" From the article: "Entertainment analysts have predicted in recent weeks that sites with large followings would command a high price. The Sony deal proved them right. But while the Grouper deal helped establish a benchmark, there is still plenty of confusion about the fair value of online video companies. This is because the typical metrics for measuring a company appear to have gone out the window--just like they did during the bubble years of the late 1990s."
Way to make money ... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Copy YouTube idea
2. Rename it PornTube
3. ???
4. Profit !!
$2,795,000,000 (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony just paid $65 Million for small-time videosharing outfit 'Grouper'. That site has around 1% of the videosharing market. The article asks, at that price, what might YouTube's 43% be worth?
I would think the answer is $65m * 43 = $2,795,000,000.
It's all relative... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only worth what it can make in a reasonable amount of time, and that time is growing short as video blogging [vobbo.com] competitors [castpost.com] build [fileratings.com] their [vimeo.com] userbases [ourmedia.com].
Eventually their huge market share will begin being split by competiing sites that slightly beat their technology, and then the value starts to fall...
Wait for the revolution (Score:5, Insightful)
These amatuer home videos are just the beginning. Eventually all professionally done shows will be available. And maybe there will be an indy uprising of stuff that wouldn't get on TV, but will be seen on the net. Actually that's already happened, but I believe amatuer stuff will become more refined over time.
The writing's on the wall.... again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Red flag (Score:5, Insightful)
Bubble Business Model? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Get bought out. (Profit!)
3. there is no step 3
Step 2 might be expanded "get bought out by people with more money than understanding of internet fads". But really, after step 2 who cares about step 3? That's for the new owner to worry about.
Revenue sucks, but assets are huge (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem: no revenue model for it yet. The great thing: easily understood and manipulated. Now there are many knock-offs, including PornoTube, and so on.
What's it worth? With little intellectual property, not much except in future revenue potential. Some aging media king, like Sony, ought to buy them and lose lots of money on them, like TW did with AOL.
Seriously folks, until a revenue model appears, it's just cool, not worth much
YouTube is great because of a bit of Flash. (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, it's soooo easy to watch the videos and share the videos. It used to be a royal pain to put video on your small or personal website. Real Audio? Windows Media? Quicktime? They were all problem prone. The odds of having those work for more than... oh, 70% of your viewers was slim at best. OS support, plugins working, and having the server side software -- it was all a mess. Never mind the bandwidth requirements. YouTube made it easy. Since more than 90% of people have Flash installed, and Flash video seems idiot proof (to watch), the whole video thing is now practical. Plus YouTube provides the bandwidth, and cut-and-paste HTML for sharing.
In hindsight, it's a simple concept, executed well, and with good timing. That said, I wouldn't spend a billion for it. I don't think people care where they host their videos as long as it's free, quick, and easy. I doubt that many people actually browse YouTube, so switching costs for video sharers and viewers is pretty much zero.
Re:Wait for the revolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, and in a perfect world everything would be perfect. While your statement has the "all warm and nice inside" initial feel to it, it really makes absolutely no sense at all. What is it that occupies our libraries, mostly copyrighted "for profit" material. A great percentage of the material itself would not have been created if it weren't for copyright protection and the profit factor. So you actually thought that all these publishing companies were going to roll over and basically put themselves out of business? One of the reasons why libraries work the way they do is that a very small percentage of the population uses them. Publshers don't feel threatened by the fact that there is a copy of their work in a library, because they know that due to the small number of copies and the general nature of people, only a fairly insignificant amount of sales are lost.
Instead, everyone came to the party with their hand out, concerned with how they can get the biggest slice of the pie. If this mentality had existed 800 years ago, we'd still be in the dark ages.
Exactly which planet are you living on. The profit motive has existed for years and much of it centered around the control and owning of information. If you knew the safest/quickest routes, the location of the natural resources, etc, then you could make some bucks. Quit acting like somehow things are different now than they were in the "good old days".
It would be nice if I could live to see the beginning of the next renaissence.
There is a next renaissence, it's happening right now. Perhaps you're not old enough to know what it was like to get access to information pre-internet, but I am. The ease and amount of information that is just a click (or in realty, a bunch of clicks and searches, and popups, etc) away is truely staggering. The way that my kids do homework and communicate is literally a different world than what I did. Now you're beef seems to be centered around the whole money aspect, which to me is a pity, because you've apparently failed to see the revolution because you're insisting that it be free. I just see the fact that it is there, in some cases free, in some cases you have to pay, but by golly, it's there. Whereas not 20 years ago a significant portion of what's available was simple unattainable in any remotely cheap fashion.
Simple example, pre internet, there was only one place in town I could get the SJ Mercury news and then they only carried the Sunday edition. So I could either spend a significant amount of money to have a mail subscription to it, or just live with the fact that I had to pay a premium to purchase only the Sunday edition. Now I just bop over to sjmercury.com and have at it. I don't get quite 100% of the print copy, but I get access to the info I want.
Re:Wait for the revolution (Score:3, Insightful)
And the neat thing is, there's still plenty of potential in it, and progress continues at this rapid rate. Thinking about what the internet could have been is pretty useless, because there's still lots of opportunity to shape it into what you want. Why are you looking back at it like some 90 year old man who never accomplished his big goals in life. The internet is closer to a little kid, just learning how to interact with the world, with a whole bunch of possibilities to explore.
Lamenting that people are trying to make money off of it is silly as well, because anyone with any sense of history will see that the two things that best drive progress are war and greed. The internet did not take off in the 90's in spite of businesses coming aboard, it took off precisely because businesses were so interested in it. Are there some people out there who are putting their own greed in front of "progress" in a way that might not be beneficial to the rest of us? Sure, but that doesn't mean that we're failing as a whole.
The utopia that you imagine where all information is free is nothing more than an unreasonable fantasy, because discovering, creating, compiling, organizing, and distributing that information requires resources and effort, and not many people can afford to work for free. Information does not, on its own, automatically transcend culture, politics, and language. It'd take a whole lot of effort to make all that work.
I don't think many people in the renaissance were going around offering their services for no charge. Things may have been simpler back then, but people still had to buy food to eat, and clothes to wear. The renaissance was not some golden age where everyone floated around care-free and discussed philosophy and art all day. Today's technology and things like the internet are at least as big a deal as anything that happened during the renaissance. If the changes aren't as apparent to you, consider the relative timescales involved, as well as your own pessimistic attitude towards right now.
Re:Wait for the revolution (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you mean authors, artists, journalists, researchers, software developers etc ... I guess you could consider Joe Blow novelist a "baron" but it's a bit of a stretch.
A common dream amongst people who don't produce information for a living.
Re:YouTube is worth ZERO dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
It's trivial to prove the existence of copyrighted content on YouTube.
It is not as trivial to prove that YouTube was aware that sharing a particular piece of content was a violation of copyright, or even if it was that YouTube is liable for damages.