Google and You Tube

October 10th, 2006 at 6:12 pm by David Farrar

Today’s news that Google has purchased YouTube for US$1.65 billion is a good reminder of how a quality product can beat a good brand on the .

We saw this with Google itself. Prior to Google most people used Alta Vista for searches. It si now basically defunct.

Google has many great products. But last year when they launched Google Video, their site wasn’t that great. You Tube on the other hand had better features, better viewing, great use of tags etc and within months almost everyone was using You Tube instead of Google Video.

This is the great thing about the Internet. Quality is rewarded. You can produce the bets hamburger in the world but you won’t overtake McDonalds for market share without a couple of decades to spare and a huge marketing budget. On the Net market share can flow and ebb within weeks.

You Tube has 100 million (yes million) video clipes viewed a day, with an additional 65,000 also added on daily. Juha estimates their bandwidth is 200 terabytes a day!

Anyway the three founders who set this up are now all massively rich – because thay had an idea and a vision and followed it through. Capitalism at work :-)

Tags:

16 Responses to “Google and You Tube”

  1. Polemic () says:

    Sure, although it is yet to turn a profit.

    Bit like 42 Below too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. rightline () says:

    No wonder my broadband speed is down to 90KB/s at 6PM

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kimble () says:

    Polemic, the company wasnt bought for its current profit stream, very few companies are. Youtube fits nicely into Googles business plan. They had a division that didnt work, so they shut it down and bought a company that did.

    42 Below also wasnt purchased based on its current income stream. That company was formed to do exactly what it did, build a brand. And the brand it built is top shelf. The brand is an intangible asset, but can often be worth more than the rest of the company.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Polemic () says:

    Thank you, Kimble

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Kimble () says:

    Touche.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ChickenLittle () says:

    How long before Petabyte enters every day language?

    Or Datafarm?

    Quote of the day on this -

    ‘Google,my favourite near monopoly’

    Its gotta be a good thing. Right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. err.. () says:

    I can’t be the only person who liked Google Video better. Between the lighter interface (=less wait time when bandwidth is already stressed by having other videos buffering) and the ability to download videos in formats other than .flc (and with the audio properly in sync with the video) I thought it was clearly superior. YouTube just has more teenage girls dancing around their bedrooms.

    Oh yeah, this is DPF’s blog… sorry I spoke!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Zippy Gonzales () says:

    Two things preclude a Kiwi-type YouTube innovation. Crappy bandwidth and exorbitant domestic server space prices. It would be really good, for example, to be able to say to Google:

    “Hey, you want less government intrusion into your business? Why not move your operations to NZ? Bring your Head Office and everything. We have no Department of Homeland Security to hassle you for search data.”

    But there’s no way that could happen, because we just don’t have the capacity to deal with that sort of scale. Can you see 200 terabytes of data working through NZ’s internet plumbing daily?

    There is a possibility that someone in NZ thought of the YouTube idea first, but lacked the resources to give it a blat. NZ is left with rare examples of low-bandwidth goldmines such as TradeMe to work with. Or Ferrit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Keith () says:

    “YouTube just has more teenage girls dancing around their bedrooms.”
    And more jihadist promotional videos and censorship of those who disagree with them.
    Google is the perfect buyer, since they’re also biased and dishonest about which news sources they quote in Google News.
    Doubt it? go here and have a look:
    http://michellemalkin.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. brian_smaller () says:

    Just a shame that like most people in the west they cave into jihadism though. They remove anti-jihadi videos but leave the most vile, hate filled and racist jihadi stuff online.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. sonic () says:

    Poor Michelle, her p*sspoor videos are not on youtube, what a shame.

    of course she does haev here own site and her own video stream (the vent) but nothing seems to stop her moaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. side show bob () says:

    Youtube does work so great here. Takes 10 mins to watch 2, waste of bloody time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Keith () says:

    Sonic misses the point entirely, as usual.
    Did you actually look at the evidence, sonic or were you simply unable to resist babbling inanities?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. edt () says:

    Aside from the distribution deals Google is developing to stream music videos etc on YouTube, isn’t it a giant copyright law suit in the making, given the blatantly pirated material people post?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ChickenLittle () says:

    Edt – Youtube has already got deals with four of the big five record co’s. Just SonyBMG to go, I think.
    Those companies realise they are better off doing deals with content providers like Youtube rather than trying to sue.
    I’m fairly sure you will see copyright deals flying thick and fast in the next year or so.
    One of Googles many strengths is that it has experience in this area through its ebooks etc.

    Google paid 1.2% of its market cap for Youtube and its stock rose 2% yesterday. Nice Huh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Falafulu Fisi () says:

    The founders of Google, Mr. Page & Mr. Brin are so scared of Microsoft about what they are going to do. This was an admission by Mr. Brin in an interview on March issue of “Time” magazine, 2006.

    Bill Gates, has declared an open war with Google, because Bill wants to snatch the top spot in “search engine” from Google.

    This is interesting as competitions are heating up in the domain of “search engine”. I think that the dominance of Google will wane over time, as Microsoft will close the gap with Google, as they are developing their own state-of-the-art search algorithm capability to beat Google.

    This competition between vendors will benefit consumers, as price for placed advertisement will come down.

    Anyone who wouldn’t think that Bill Gates can beat Google over the coming years, just read about this research paper (see link below) from Microsoft where they have extended the original ‘PageRank’ algorithm or PR for short, that was invented by founders of Google (Page & Brin), which is the workhorse of Google search engine. This extension of ‘PageRank’ by Microsoft, which they called ‘Block Level PageRank’ or BLPR for short, has shown to outperform the current Google’s ‘PageRank’ in terms of document retrieval “precision”. Document retrieval “precision”, is defined as the proportion of retrieved and relevant documents to all the documents retrieved. Eg, if there are 20 documents retrieved for a search query and only 15 of them are relevant to the query topic, then the precision is 15/20 or 75% precision.

    Go to page 6 of the document (see link below) and check out ‘Figure 3′ and ‘Figure 4′ , which shows that Microsoft BLPR algorithm (Block Level PageRank) has higher precision and is superior to Google’s PR (PageRank). The result shown in the paper is verifiable by any software developer who can check out the performance & precision of the algorithms described in the paper. BUT, what about the more advanced version of the algorithm that Microsoft didn’t publish? OK, just extrapolate it forward, if their published algorithm that is shown to beat Google’s ‘PageRank’ in terms of precision, we can all infer that they have a more superior version that is internal to their product development which is superior to their own publicly available algorithm (Block Level PageRank). This PDF paper is freely downloadable below.

    “Block-level Link Analysis”
    ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2004-50.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.