The 'YouTube Is Doomed' Guy Has More to Say

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
As much as people might hate to admit it, this guy has more than a few valid points about the sustainability of YouTube. Agree? Disagree?

Consumers are basically unwilling to believe that anything bad could ever happen to YouTube because they've become emotionally attached to a product that they believe should continue to exist and that Google should continue to subsidize.
Click to expand...
 
Can't say that I disagree with anything he had to say. It's a good thing that TV sponsors don't realize that most people ignore their ad's and their ad's being on a favorite tv show are not going to get me to buy their product/service. That's the lesson the internet has taught us by giving us hard numbers showing that advertising doesn't get you enough revenue. Good thing the TV sponsors don't realize this. Advertising revenue is a concept from decades ago in an era of consumer ignorance and lack of choice - when it did work. All advertising is good for is to let people know something exists, it doesn't win people over. If they like it they like it because of the product, not because of the advertising. This is why most advertising is nothing but lies and twists on the truth about what the product is and what it offers, or does not offer.

My crazy guess is that youtube will turn into an internet tv network like hulu, maybe with some unique content that isn't crap like the majority of hulu is (yes some stuff is great). It will be ad driven just like tv on your tv now is. In other words, tv will be the same only on the internet. Maybe some premium content that requires a subscription too, such as hbo and porn. Oh wait, the porno people already know all of this. Porn leads the pack again. That's so funny.
 
i dont think that youtube can make it because its loosing to much money and that people wont pay for it, also being emotionally attached to a product isn't that smart, i try not to be but i know that my life is a bit to dependent on the [H]
 
@niconx

Blanket advertising does work, and quite effectively. It's why name brands are usually more expensive than generic. Because people are more likely to buy something they know about than something they don't. So they put some banner ads for "Wild Widgets" on a website, people who go to the store are more likely to buy the "Wild Widgets" over their less known competition "Crazy Widgets" just because of a banner ad they saw one on a website. This is why the advertising industry rakes in multi-billions dollars a year.
 
Burning_Monk said:
@niconx

Blanket advertising does work, and quite effectively. It's why name brands are usually more expensive than generic. Because people are more likely to buy something they know about than something they don't. So they put some banner ads for "Wild Widgets" on a website, people who go to the store are more likely to buy the "Wild Widgets" over their less known competition "Crazy Widgets" just because of a banner ad they saw one on a website. This is why the advertising industry rakes in multi-billions dollars a year.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but advertising revenue doesn't even get close to paying youtube's bills. That's my point, not that its completely ineffective, only that it can't drive a massive leech like youtube.
 
Youtube is one of the most powerful network bandwidth monitoring tools in the world. It's users need not install anything yet each node passively providing insurmountable levels of feedback.

Oh it's movies? OH. :D
 
ashmedai said:
Google is an ad company.
Click to expand...

That would make youtube its Loss Leader of choice.

I can see Google concluding: 'To heck with that!' & simply pulling the plug. In fact, I expect this to happen sooner rather than later.
 
Personally, I don't see Youtube being pulled, but sold off to someone else.

If google does keep it, those that upload videos would go on a subscription basis depending on number of views per month. 1000 views per month might cost $10, while 10,000 views would cost $25 per month.

IF they followed that model, they'd have lower costs, due to less people uploading and higher revenue.

I also see they would/should offer a youtube pro account for $50/$100 per month to allow skinable players and no advertisements during the video. That way if a business wants to use youtube to present their products, they can do so efficiently.
 
Lets be honest anyone over the age of 5 only uses youtube to watch(or more specifically listen to music) copyrighted material.

If it weren't for all the music on youtube(and I don't mean chocolate rain) I would never visit that dumpster fire of a website.

All that aside, if you are the most known product in your industry and are wildly popular....yet are losing money. That doesn't bode well for your business plan does it?
 
You can't control it based on number of views, Some kid uploads a video he thinks is going to get 100 views for his friends, and somehow it spreads like crazy and now it has 2 million views... they're expected to pay for that?

Maybe just have limits like Vimeo does, you can pay more to unlock those limits, or you can have a free account and be stuck with certain limitations.
 
djgizmo said:
If google does keep it, those that upload videos would go on a subscription basis depending on number of views per month. 1000 views per month might cost $10, while 10,000 views would cost $25 per month.
Click to expand...
.

That doesn't make any sense. You need to switch the concept around. MORE subscribers costs more? Then what incentive would someone have? You might as well have 1 view to keep it the cheapest.....It's the buying in bulk concept..more is less.

It'd be the other way around....more views cost less, so you have an incentive to get people to view more. This might not work either though, because then you'll have idiots who send you random messages with improper grammar and punctuation telling you to subscribe to them, and also put talk bubbles in the videos telling you to subscribe. I purposely choose not to subscribe when I see this because it's annoying.

Even so, subscriptions based on views probably won't work. Usually subscription services are one price for everyone. Someone who reads the Wall Street Journal every day pays the same price as the guy who reads it once a week. Variable subscriptions never work, unless there are significant benefits. Cheaper based on views? Probably not.

To the topic in general, Google is going to ride out YouTube. Google doesn't exactly get rid of things...they change it up so it works. Google Chrome blows but they haven't dropped it; they're changing it up trying to make it work. Whether YouTube will work or not is another question, but Google isn't going to just drop it.
 
Google will never pull the plug on YouTube. Why? Because it would immediately open the door for competing companies like Microsoft to offer similar services (because they, like Google, have enough money to handle it for a few years). After everyone flocks to the new service, MS could easily get everyone to start using their other services, like search and maps, by cleverly integrating them with the new video sharing site. Google would never take such a risk.

Think about it: right now Google owns and has complete control over the largest website (by bandwidth usage) on the Internet. A power-hungry company like Google would never give that up.

Of course, I'm probably just like the article says: rationalizing why YouTube could never die simply because I really, really don't want it to. Google should just create a premium account that offers a few extra features and no ads. I would gladly subscribe just to support the site.
 
Everyone seems to be missing the fact that bandwidth costs get cut in half every 18 months. Storage costs ditto. CPU power? Same.

Youtube will reach profitability within 2 years.
 
DigitalisAkujin said:
Everyone seems to be missing the fact that bandwidth costs get cut in half every 18 months. Storage costs ditto. CPU power? Same.

Youtube will reach profitability within 2 years.
Click to expand...

Enterprise bandwidth cost gets get in half every 18 months? I thought there were just adding more of the same ultra expensive fiber optic stuff in order to meet demand. I really have no idea what that type of hardware costs though.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Think about it: right now Google owns and has complete control over the largest website (by bandwidth usage) on the Internet. A power-hungry company like Google would never give that up.
Click to expand...

They would if it meant the difference between turning a profit or not.

Youtube is a huge cost center for them. RoI is patehtic.
 
I think Youtube is sustainable, but the problem is the amount of time they keep content. The more content, the more storage required. The more content, the more bandwith will get used to view that content.

I'd say like a 60 day limit on content. Most times the same stuff is posted like 50 times anyways.
 
im going to add my two cents and say that i hope youtube goes down in flames. good for nothing 12yo magnet.
 
I have a co-worker (well, co-employee, let's be honest...) that wouldn't know what to do with himself at work if they ever pulled the plug on Youtube...

It's :rolleyes: to be bothered in the data center by someone wanting to be certain you watch the youtube video they've just e-mailed everyone... I'm in the data center, I probably have something else to do right now...

We joke all of the time at work about the amount of traffic our place of employment must generate on the You due to just a handful of people on the payroll... And to think that supposedly we're not even supposed to be accessing the internet, anyway...

Then again, he's like a Youtube search engine... if you can't find something, mention it to him, and he'll email you results in a matter of minutes... Some think he's keeping a catalog/index of all Youtube's videos...
 
Tolyngee said:
Then again, he's like a Youtube search engine... if you can't find something, mention it to him, and he'll email you results in a matter of minutes... Some think he's keeping a catalog/index of all Youtube's videos...
Click to expand...

Lol, I can be like that sometimes. Mention something funny or interesting, and I'll have a relevant Youtube video in seconds. :D
 
Youtube isn't losing $150 mill a year, it is not making more then $150 mill a year... These numbers are just accounting bullshit, make it not for profit and it would be doing just fine.
 
Nanan said:
Youtube isn't losing $150 mill a year, it is not making more then $150 mill a year... These numbers are just accounting bullshit, make it not for profit and it would be doing just fine.
Click to expand...

Lol, so how do they pay hosting/bandwidth bills?

Sunshine a fairy farts? wake up cupcake fairy
 
"All advertising is good for is to let people know something exists, it doesn't win people over. If they like it they like it because of the product, not because of the advertising."

I'd also agree that this is incorrect. Even last weeks episode of "Pitch Men" proved that in a sense. Billy Mays and Anthony Sullivan both did near identical spots for the same product. Billy's ad sold 40% more, not because of the product. Because the ad worked and sold customers. Granted, not everyone likes him but he sells products, more so than the product will sell itself. TV advertising works plain and simple.

As far as the topic goes. I read both articles and I can find anything to disagree with myself. Youtube really does not seem like a sustainable model as it is.
 
Nanan said:
Youtube isn't losing $150 mill a year, it is not making more then $150 mill a year... These numbers are just accounting bullshit, make it not for profit and it would be doing just fine.
Click to expand...

and on this -

Google is not in the non-profit business. That makes no sense at all for their business model or stockholders. It's about money.
 
DigitalisAkujin said:
Everyone seems to be missing the fact that bandwidth costs get cut in half every 18 months. Storage costs ditto. CPU power? Same.

Youtube will reach profitability within 2 years.
Click to expand...

perhaps if those are the primary cost drivers... will their payroll be cut in half?
 
It makes me wonder if the other video sharing sites are losing money also or is it just youtube.
 
I believe that some sort of p2p protocol is the future. It makes no sense for one company to keep all the files and stream them to users. So for example when watching a video on youtube you will stream it someone else who will stream it to someone else etc. Making it decentralized instead of having Google serving every one directly. Sharing the burden is the only way because the amount of data is only going to increase for every year.
 
TheCAD said:
Lets be honest anyone over the age of 5 only uses youtube to watch(or more specifically listen to music) copyrighted material.
Click to expand...

This is not true, at all. There is tons of Public domain material, I for example watched Obama's innauguration speech on Youtube, which was available from the Associated Press. There are many shows that have been uploaded by their respective copyright owners, such as PBS who hosts NOVA or the National Geographic Channel. Many music companies such as Columbia, BMI, Universal & Sony now host their own music videos meaning you can watch them COMPLETELY legal. Sure you may have to rely on older music videos to be uploaded by users, but I dont think the music industry is too worried about an unauthorized upload of Thompson Twin's Hold Me Now.

You the have the bread and butter of Youtube, and that is the user generated media. Most of it is crap sure, but there is tons of really informative as well as really funny material. I've learned how to use features in computer programs, I've learned boss fights in World of Warcraft, I've seen products in action before buying them, I've even learned some science. And I as a user have contributed these very same things as well.

Yes there are copyright issues on Youtube, buts that is not ALL it is anymore. Thats more The Pirate Bay or Mininova.

Youtube is an awsome change to the way people have access to information and each other. I'd say Youtube and Wikipedia are probably the 2 most major websites to come along in a while, possibly ever. T-minus 20 seconds to commencing utter flame fest.
 
dagas said:
Sharing the burden is the only way because the amount of data is only going to increase for every year.
Click to expand...


Or we will realize that data is simply a neccassity for our culture and way of life. Internet may become subsidized in just the same way that physical roads are owned and paid for by the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top