techcrunch.com — Time Magazine recently called YouTube one of the biggest tech failures of the past decade, which was hilarious. Hilarious in that the site is by far and away the most popular site for video on the web, and has revolutionized the way we view videos, period. Today brings another amazing stat about the site: Every single minute, over 20 hours of ....
May 21, 2009 View in Crawl 4
pathouston22May 21, 2009
Popularity does not equal success. Youtube will fail unless it can turn a profit, because not much is ran for long periods of time at a continuous financial loss.
btcc222May 21, 2009
Keep in mind that most videos on YouTube won't become popular so unless they're deleted after a while, they'd need to increase their profits year after year to stay profitable even if their user figures remained constant.But then again, perhaps storage and bandwidth costs will decrease quicker than their usage increases.On an unrelated note, I wonder if sites such as YouTube could make any use of P2P technology to lower their bandwidth costs. Perhaps when upload speeds increase.
Closed AccountMay 21, 2009
I stand by Time on this one. in 08 Youtube cost Google about 700million to operate but they only took in about 250million in ad revenue. That is not a winning formula.
rendonsmugMay 21, 2009
My favorite is Control Weekly. It costs 2 blue and 2 colorless.
qumahlinMay 22, 2009
Most people who talked about Hulu "Failing" were referring to it competing against Youtube which was a stupid comparison to begin with.Youtube is a site that accepts any s**t video and also happens to offer content from some real providers. Hulu on the otherhand has an actual business model and is not full of useless 2 second videos and just general garbage of Youtube.
qumahlinMay 22, 2009
I've always wondered. Why do people bother to ask questions like this in the age of google...you could get the answer with a modicum of searching, or you could post and then wait and hope someone gives you a real answer...now which do you think is the more effective route.
qumahlinMay 22, 2009
Google owns enough infrastructure now that thier bandwidth costs aren't nearly that of their storage and backend costs. Not to mention why in gods name would I visit a video site that is going to use my bandwidth to serve other people videos...do they plan on giving me the cut of the money?