Google acquired youtube.com

[octobus]

I read that the founders together "only" had the 40% of the shares.

 

[Mr.Domains]

You would think for $1.65 billion you could create something on your own.

Of course they could have built their own "YouTube" for less that 10% of that figure, but they weren't buying it for the technology. Everytime you upload something onto YouTube you are basically giving them the rights to the content. What Google just paid $1.65 billion for was the publication rights to just about every video on the internet.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

With the Google name behind it, a completely new venture in competition to youtube would probably cost no more than $5 million to have started and be at 50,000 videos real quick. They could have used something like GooView or whatever -- it's already suggested in this thread that the name is irrelevant.

I can't understand a deal with a bank where a bank gets shares on the basis of funding. I don't think that would fly with the banking authorities here in the UK.

Of course, a lot depends on what class of stock Google gave to YouTube. Was it a rights issue; new issue, or unissued stock? If it's from anything but their own holdings or unissued stock, then the shareholders will have paid for the acquisition by virtue of dilution -- if it makes a profit over and above any dilution factor, then the stockholders will be happy. If it doesn't, then it will have been a bad move.

I bet the two guys are locked into a tight agreement not to sell those shares in the market too quickly.

My take: Google should have done it themselves, or paid a sensible price.

 

[cooljeba]

if I was utube.com i would have sold the domain and invested to make the steel company larger and bigger.

I wonder how much order the domain name will be bring him anyway even though it has so much traffic.


..:: peace ::..
Jeba

 

[typist]

YouTube will stay independent, really!
The video site will keep its identity after its $1.65 billion sale to Google is complete, its CEO insists, but 'a lot [needs] to be figured out.'

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/13/new...gle.youtube.fortune/index.htm?CNN=yes?cnn=yes

 

[playpics]

good 4 them

 

[Jacksplat]

Everytime you upload something onto YouTube you are basically giving them the rights to the content. What Google just paid $1.65 billion for was the publication rights to just about every video on the internet.

That's alot of videos.. Has anyone seen any articles from the most popular uploaders with concern to this ?

 

[Creature]

What Google just paid $1.65 billion for was the publication rights to just about every video on the internet.

I wonder what percentage of the YouTube videos should not be on the site. have you seen this? 30,000 clips cut. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6069692.stm

 

[cursal]

Yeah that has got to be a blow......29,549 copyright'ed clips pulled off the site.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/20/japanese_target_youtube/

The related links below the article are good to give a rounded view of the deal till now...

Google will weather through this fine. Just heard the stock report say G is expected to hit just below 600 USD before the end of the year!

We will see, but I think this time they will. jmo

 

[Jernet]

can you even imagine what google itself must be worth?

 

[Dale Hubbard]

can you even imagine what google itself must be worth?

It's a publicly quoted stock. You can find out exactly.

 

[catchse]

Youtube may not be the same after this google deal. It may even lose traffice.