Apollo Hosting- Company Blog

Google and YouTube, a match made... somewhere. No one is absolutely certain where, as immediate analysis, both from when the buy was merely "rumored" a few days ago, till now, when it's "official", runs from the standard "it's the worst thing ever" to "it's the best thing ever", with very few stops in between. One of the more enjoyable aspects of the story rocketing from rumor to fact so quickly is the posters claiming it will "never happen" in forum threads started by the rumors can now be quite effectively mocked, since those same threads are still going strong in light of the recent confirmation.

Google already has video, in the form of Google Video. Google Video began rather simply as a search of transcripts of television programs, with a thumbnail result of the show, usually near where the occurrence of the search word or phrase appeared. Though perhaps a useful tool for academics and researchers looking to mine televised resources for relevant information from interviews, etc, it did not make any kind of big popular splash. It doesn't appear this capability even exists in the "new" Google Video.

The "new" Google Video appeared to about as much fanfare as the transcript search. Now users could upload videos directly. In what was touted as a significant feature, they could also purchase videos from content providers in the form of televisions shows, documentaries, music videos, and other media. Unfortunately the austere interface which works so well in Google's web search never really "sang" for this highly visual medium, and the selection of purchasable videos was, and still is, highly limited. If I recall correctly, they initially offered about seven episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. They're up to 45 now, buck-ninety-nine a piece.

Google's hook was that they would provide the video, and content providers would set the prices. This also caused problems, as different providers charged wildly different prices for similar fare. Deep Space Nine is $1.99, but poor Charlie Rose is $.99? Nature documentaries over 3 dollars? Many music videos are also $1.99, but you're paying the same for 3 minutes of music as for 40 minutes of Trek.

What use there was for Google Video came from the users uploading their own content. A quick look at the "Top 100" reveals the general tastes of the average Google user runs between the salacious, the nauseous, and people experiencing grievous bodily harm. Unfortunately for Google, someone else was doing this too, with a lot more people participating. That would be those young whippersnappers over at YouTube. In an similar unfortunate turn of events, someone else was also selling videos a lot more effectively, and that would be the less youthful group over at iTunes.

So, Google Video was in danger of becoming the ultimate also-ran of online video. What to do? Well, buy YouTube, obviously.

YouTube is where a bunch of that vastly wider audience was uploading videos with salacious, nauseous, and painful content with a lot more regularity. It's also where those same music videos you'd pay for at Google appeared for free, as well as full episodes of various TV shows. It's the possible "complications" from the last couple things that made "noted billionaire" Mark Cuban call anyone who would purchase YouTube a "moron." After all, no one is really going to buy the "fair use" exception for 29.9 minutes of a 30 minute show.

There was an expected "flurry" of lawsuits against YouTube for all the fully complete, copyrighted content its devoted users have uploaded for all to see. Only, this flurry has yet to start, not even a few flakes. In fact, recently Universal and other media outlets started signing agreements with YouTube to allow their content to be carried. This obviously isn't every media outlet, and the danger of lawsuits remains, but Google as a company is a bigger player than a couple guys running a venture capital operation. Google is obviously willing to assume the risk they'll have to deal with content providers that don't want to hop in bed with all those YouTube users clamoring for free videos.

Other than the copyright issues, there's also the minor detail that YouTube isn't exactly making any money. They display banner ads on all their pages, which appears to be the primary extent to which the service has been monetized. Basically anyone can sign up, verify their email, and start uploading videos that anyone else can view. The bandwidth costs are enormous, and a few banner ads, no matter how much they charge for them, aren't going to pay the bills.

Enter Google, Adwords, and the equally hyped "video Adwords." Some are saying this is a way for Google to really push video Adwords. In fact, laments from YouTube fans about uncertain futures of having to watch "premercials" to see videos are, no doubt, clogging the series of tubes that we know as the Internet even as I type. (It's not a truck, kids.) Google's own press release on the acquisition states their intent pretty clearly (emphasis added):

"The acquisition combines one of the largest and fastest growing online video entertainment communities with Google's expertise in organizing information and creating new models for advertising on the Internet. The combined companies will focus on providing a better, more comprehensive experience for users interested in uploading, watching and sharing videos, and will offer new opportunities for professional content owners to distribute their work to reach a vast new audience."

Remember, they've already got deals with a lot of those "content owners" for distribution on Google Video. Been there- done that- can add more. Mix Adwords in, and they've got a powerful combo that will reach a lot of people.

For my part, I used both Google Video and YouTube more in writing this blog entry than I probably have over the past year combined. Though I've clicked a few links from forums to check out clips others suggested, neither site has been a common destination. I support people's right to post home video of some guy vomiting, but I've moved a little beyond the point I find that, in and of itself, humorous. I don't even bother trying to find all those "free" TV shows. Honestly, given the choice between highly compressed streaming Flash for "free" and first-run HD with commercials, I'll pick the commercials. Or I'll DVR it and fast forward through the commercials later.

Overall, I think this is a good deal for Google. They paid in stock, after all. I'm no financial whiz, but I think that means an actual wheelbarrow full of cash was not involved. Even if you used those special 100,000 bills, you'd still need 10,650 of them, so it would need to be a really big wheelbarrow. If anyone can figure out how to effectively monetize YouTube, it'll be Google. If not, they always have Google Video to fall back on...