What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.108 Comments
- Ghostgum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+88Google don't need YouTube... they already have Google Video.
- ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Any way you slice it, as soon as any company starts trying to make a profit off of Youtube, we'll probably all start flocking to Google video.
- xorian, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28My guess goes to Time Warner or Yahoo. Even though Google is very successful, they can't buy a $1 billion service, that doesn't have a way of making money. Time Warner could indeed easily integrate it in their other public services, and Yahoo also has Flickr. Flickr and YouTube.. Could be an interesting match.
But in any case, I think we wouldn't benefit from it. Unless Google buys it, we'll be flooded with other, stupid services no one is interested in, and advertisements taking up 70% of our screen. Google would probably do something innovative with it, but unfortunately, I don't see them buying YouTube. Simply too expensive, and there's not much room for profit. - kimos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Misleading title... YouTube _could_ be bought by one of them, in the opinion of this guy.
- lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+122006: Youtube sells to another company for a ridiculous amount of money
2007: New owners are forced to crackdown on illegal materials rendering the site nearly useless (because who wants to see 12 year olds singing karaoke on their cameraphones?)
2007: People run away from Youtube to use another less restrictive site
2010: What's Youtube???? - KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12flickr cant make a profit either, why would yahoo be stupid enough to buy another cash sink?
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+111. Adobe will not. They just recently bought Macromedia.
2. Time warner will not. They're making their own video service.
3. Google will not. They've already GOT their own.
4. NewsCorp... Mmmmaaaayyybee. But I doubt it.
5. Yahoo! seems most likely, but improbable. - Burmask, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Where's the MPAA in that list?
- TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I agree with you about the Flickr and YouTube deal. Having both those websites under their belts would highly benefit Yahoo and would certainly help boost their ego a bit, having the best photo AND video sharing sites.
- Royall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Youtube might be a harder sell than it would first appear. If I had a company, I wouldn't want to take on all the weight of the copyright lawsuits waiting to happen.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8i dont think ANYONE is going to purchase youtube, unless a)youtube migrates to a profit-generating model or b)they (the buyer) have a profit generating model to impliment or c) they have more money than james mason/god.
whats the point of spending all of that money if there is no return? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8What gain would any company have by aquiring youtube? They have no buisness model at all and only lose money. According to Leo Laport, youtube is doomed to be sued out of existence sadly...
http://www.twit.tv/TWiT - warofwrath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6actually, Myspace (and therefore NewsCorp) also has their own video section
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5None of those Companies will buy YouTube. Yahoo learned it's lesson about buying bandwidth burning web entities. YouTube seems to have destroyed their own fortune. Now every big company has their own video service, thus cannibalising their own possiblity of being bought.
- DrGonzo1184, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6especially if YouTube is bought by myspace, I will jump off that like rats on a sinking ship.
- lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes you're correct there ericnmu, I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear in my comment that I have nothing to do with Youtube or any potential buyer. Let me also go on record to say that I'm not a business analyst, accountant, market researcher, journalist or psychic. Please don't interpret my comment as stock-market advice, or a reason to sell your shares in a company that may or may not be possibly considering the purchase of Youtube...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And the RIAA as well. You can't have a radio playing in the background of your home video, otherwise they'll sue you.
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3YouTube isnt a very attractive aquisition for more than $20M (and that would only be for an existing major player who could leverage the trafffic).
First off, they dont have an attractive business model.
Second, they have *plenty* of competition (like a new one every day) and its not like they have any secret technology the other guys dont.
This isnt a Google-like company which has a secret algoythim that makes it superior above other offerings, its just a first-mover who could lose their community to an also-ran at any time for any reason. - Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think that Yahoo is the most likely one. Yahoo wants to compete with Google, and something like YouTube would probably pull them up at least a little closer to them
- lazypeon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The story is based on nothing. No facts, no hard reasoning, just out-of-your-ass guessing.
- Dalhectar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5No one is going to buy YouTube. No one wants it. Bandwidth costs. No digg. None of these companies have anything to gain by throwing money down the bandwidth and support costs hole. Why even waste time writing a story that's not remotely likely to happen?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If the YouTube owners could come up with some way to generate revenue, they would probably be in a better position to sell it. Right now it's nothing but a buyer's market since the balance sheet would heavily favor a discounted buyout...
- corsar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The valuation of $1B is ridiculous, and anybody who buys YouTube will be sorely burned in the pocket."
Very good point.
there is a class action suit against youtube, if I'm not mistaken....if all copyrighted material is removed, the traffic will drop to less than 1%-who wants to see teenagers in front of their computers?don't we have MySpace for that? - NickDouglas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Since I just wrote last week why YouTube is about to die, I figured I'd explain why each of Shaw's companies won't buy it.
http://www.valleywag.com/tech/youtube/these-six-companies-wont-buy-youtube-for-a-billion-dollars-191030.php - sedition, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I totally agree. Although it seems that "web2.0" has made people as stupid with their money as "web1.0". ( hint: the quotes mean I think those tags are stupid too. ). I think AT&T or some big backbone provider should buy them and then shut them down to save themselves a ton of bandwidth costs.
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4For the millions of youtube users out there who don't use apple products, this would be a terrible change. The youtube flash player is good, it works, and it works a lot better than embedded quicktime videos in firefox. I don't want Ipod only content. I don't own an Ipod. I don't want programming specific to Itunes. I do not own Itunes. I do not want programming specific to their eventual devices. I will not be buying their eventual other devices. It would be foolish for anyone who bought youtube to lock it down so it only works with certain hardware or software. Now it is a website that will work on basically any modern computer. It should stay that way.
- jmaresca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I dont think any of those companies will buy youtube simply for the fact that most of their content violates copyright laws.
- overkil6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If anyone is to pick it up I would think it would be Time Warner. CNN has already been using YouTube to show clips of the Mid East "war" - perhaps this is their bid at exposing YouTube to the public?
- breezy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I think YouTube currently doesn't have a lot of community to it and is just a massive warehouse of videos. Flickr on the other hand has more of a community and isn't very much like YouTube. As far as video sites go, I think Vimeo.com is a lot more similar to Flickr and would be a better match.
- dollars5, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually this listing needs a logical thinking on the proposed company's spending habits as well.
Yahoo: Always buys cheap companies (I don't think their Annual report did allocate $1billion for acquisitions)
News Corp: My Space already has videos section (and News Corps strategy is also same invest in cheap things)
Google: Already has Google Video (same investment staged: don't invest anything more than $100 million)
Sony: May be - always wants to be in news and needs something to expand their line - but again never invests big other companies.
Time Warner: AOL is planning its own video service and have people recruited, if they fail in their mission then buying would be their next option (You Tube: beware TW never pays in cash)
Adobe: All their concentration is on Macro media and taking flash to mobile to compete with J2ME (may be it might be their next mission)
And my prediction is You Tube will never be acquired and will remain and die one day on its own (probably when a new innovative service arrives) - hardkoretom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ummm. didnt the owner just say last week that there wasnt any way that he was gonna sell any time soon?
- persaltier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2YouTube is the new Vonage. Their time has come and gone to see a profit on any sale of the business. Everyone now has their own video-sharing technologies (which aren't proprietary in nature, mind you) and the implementation (UI / load-balancing) is the only thing that trully seperates one from the next. The majority of content on YouTube (that gets viewed) is copyrighted material. If I miss an episode of The Daily Show, all I need to do is hop on YouTube the next day to view it, bypassing the need to dl the torrent / tivo it.
The valuation of $1B is ridiculous, and anybody who buys YouTube will be sorely burned in the pocket. - jsk71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This analysis is absurd.
Adobe cannot afford to spend $1.5bb to promote flash. And why would it when it's getting it for free with YT right now. TWX is still burning over the AOL acquisition, how many years later?
News Corp and Google are interesting as candidates, but both might convince themselves they could bootstrap their own offerings at much less cost. Yahoo (a) can't afford another distraction until it rolls out Panama, (b) has an impaired stock as currency, and (c) could also convince itself that it could bootstrap a video product. Plus it has the added inhibition of ex-media leaders, to whom YT could represent more fear than opportunity.
Apple would never buy a service like YT. MSFT is an interesting suitor for several reasons: (a) it has the cash (b) to the extent that YT aspires to be a platform, MSFT wants to control the platform, and (c) it has shown a desire to play in media. However, MSFT has its own Microsoft TV IPTV platform it is promoting with broadband pipe providers, and acquiring YT would not be seen as aligned with that strategy. I would imagine that to the founders, MSFT's combination of cash and the distance and potential autonomy between San Mateo and Redmond look quite attractive.
But why sell now? In the Sequoia formulation, there are only seven websites that matter to the typical American, and YT has created one of those in a year. Like an early Google they can afford to spend some time finding the best way to monetize their product, while still growing like mad. Reasonable execution on that front would significantly increase the value of YT. - michaelw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2GE - I could see General Electric buying out YouTube. There are already ties between NBC (owned by GE) and YouTube. There is always a push to reach younger audiences.
The big sticking point to anybody buying YouTube is copyright infringement. - 2gig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Right. You tube spends what - a million dollars a month on bandwidth?
Who's going to spend a billion dollars on something that costs a million dollars a month and has no profit whatsoever?
You might as well set fire to bundles of cash. Youtube will not sell.. and it may not even survive. - fiv3isaliv3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Google and Yahoo! won't be buying YouTube, they both already have video services and the price tag is pretty steep with little or no return in sight. Think about it, $1 billion to buy the company and then millions in bandwidth charges each month? How does that make any sense. Even if they were to switch some of YouTube to a subscription based service they would not see a return on $1 billion in a very very long time.
I think if anyone does buy YouTube they'd need to have a solid business model in place. YouTube currently doesn't have that. 'Till someone figures out a way to make a profit off of a site worth $1 billion dollars, with a monthly bandwidth bill in the millions I don't see them getting bought anytime soon. - tkdan235, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://digg.com/tech_news/These_six_companies_won_t_buy_YouTube_for_a_billion_dollars
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They already FUBAR'd with the AOL merger. I'd think they would have a pretty bad taste in their mouth after that.
- apocalizer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of course, Google could always buy YouTube to eliminate their biggest rival and absorb its content. That would make sense. Adobe-why would they spend money on something that has almost nothing to do with them?
- MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Who needs a money burner who will close any month soon?
YouTube is just burning money... No revenue in sight. - darkjeffro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As long as it's not google. They already have their own video service and I'd rather not see more overkill.
- chandrasonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article is much more relevant on the subject: http://www.digg.com/tech_news/YouTube_Worth_1_BIllion_But_Who_Will_Buy_It
- clintonintern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No established media company (Viacom, Timewarner, etc) will ever buy YouTube in its current form.
http://battellemedia.com/archives/002745.php
It's basically an invitation to have your competitors sue-the-crap out of you for copyright infringement. It might be one thing if its YouTube and a bunch of kids living off of Sequoia Captial $$$$. It's completely another thing when you're owned by Viacom, and Sony sees its content on their competitor's site.
+cs - OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Your post was a waste of time.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2if sony does buy the site, more then likely, they'll shut the site down, completely redesign the graphical layout, upgrade the features, make it a subscription service and then .. delay the reopening.
i can't wait. - mos6507, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I understand that, but why does Fox get away with it? They are a content owner.
- schmichael, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wrong on all counts. I think ValleyWag puts it best:
http://www.valleywag.com/tech/youtube/these-six-companies-wont-buy-youtube-for-a-billion-dollars-191030.php - cody50, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If Yahoo bought it, they might call it FlickrYouTube or FUtube for short.
- venir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Somehow I don't see Sony buying YouTube considering they are about to take a $1 Billion+ loss on the launch of the PS3. I can't imagine them spending an additional billion on a business that hasn't even proven to be profitable yet.
- graphicNature, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Which would explain the billion dollar price tag.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is