|
So yesterday was the rapture. Google acquired YouTube and ascended into heaven. The search giant no longer files SEC reports, it just sends manna from the godhead. Or, if you're given to episodes of sci-fi catharsis, maybe you think Google has just become SkyNet. That's almost like becoming God, but then finding out God looks like Arnold and needs more makeup. Whatever. To borrow and misappropriate a phrase, the rumors of Google's world dominance have been greatly exagerated. Believe me, I was on the conference call announcing the acquisition yesterday. And, in between bouts of cursing the operator for not letting me ask a question I realized something: There's no plan. Take YouTube co-founder Steve Chen's word for it: "We're not exactly sure what we're going to tackle first." At which Sergey quickly piped up, well, we're going to be doing a lot with search and advertising. You don't say. Not that Google is beholden to reveal its plans on a conference call. But when you justify your company's largest purchase ever with 1) "It was a good cultural fit," and 2) We have "20-30 ideas," and then don't reveal how you came to the $1.6 billion valuation, it leaves some questions unanswered. To wit: - How did you come to that $1.6 billion valuation?
- Google Video and YouTube will remain independent, but will the two companies make different deals with content owners? That sounds like a recipe for confusion. Will the purchase allow Google to focus Google Video on becoming a download store? After all, it's created its own desktop player and partnered with DivX last year.
- Will YouTube move its videos over to a Google data center? That would cut down on the cost side of the acquisition and set the foundation for further integration. Will YouTube be accessible via my Google Account in a few months?
- Who will sue Google first? Say what you will about Mark Cuban, he's right that Google has just stepped into a legal minefield. YouTube has been gambling that its enormous popularity, handful of content deals, acquiescence to takedown notices and shallow pockets would keep it safe from legislation. But now that YouTube belongs to a company with very deep pockets, legislation would seem inevitable. Google's task now is to convince content owners that visibility online is more important than keeping content locked down. But as we've seen recently, not everybody agrees with Google's economics.
- How has Google prepared for when companies start subpoenaing individual YouTube users? You can start with Wonkette, which uploads copyrighted television news content with its own logo inserted as a kind of pre-roll. (Although I admit, I love what Wonkette recommends.) How will courts judge user violations? Will you get fined $1,000 per infringement? Per 1,000 page views?
- How has Google improved its video content detection? During the call, both YouTube founders repeatedly mentioned that Google would help with better video indexing, metadata search and fingerprinting. I have no doubt Google will help with search. But last I heard, Google had admitted problems with indexing video on the Web for lack of metadata. (You know what'd be really cool? If Google also bought a company like Veotag and provided text annotations for the most popular videos. Or, if YouTube applied Google's "link within a video" technology, but made it more intuitive.)
- When will videos be added to search, especially to Google News and Google News Archive?
- Will Google start sending takedown notices to sites that help you to download videos off YouTube? You've got a few options.
- How will Google adapt to brand management? As John Battelle notes, this is Google's first time acquiring a brand that's really, really popular. YouTube has a different vibe--at least to external eyes--than Google. Also: Will Chad and Steve get sucked into meeting hell, as happened at Yahoo with Flickr, or at AOL with Calacanis?
- How will Google deal with YouTubers who game the system? As the Rabbit Bites blog points out, there's something rotten in the state of YouTube-ville-burg City. If you're going to be selling ads on that site, Google, better make sure this guy or this guy or this guy isn't inflating your page and video views.
I have no doubt that Larry, Sergey and Eric--before they even met Chad Hurley--spent countless hours thinking about buying YouTube or a company like it. To my mind, they're making a bet that YouTube will continue growing, and that that growth will continue to provide ample inventory for ads. I assume that, according to their math, the $1.6 billion spent now is less money than a) the billions they'd spend jockeying for ad deals in the future, and b) the opportunity cost of letting a competitor buy the site.Sergey's right: Video is a very important part of content. But at the end of the day, Google made this deal in a hurry, which means there were external factors that forced its hand. That gives me pause to wonder at the wisdom of the deal, and should give you pause, too. |
Comments (10)
Steve, Dead On. At first mention of the rumor of the deal the joke among my colleagues was: "Now the lawyers have someone to sue with money." Cheers, Michael
Posted by Michael Cizmar | October 10, 2006 1:18 PM
Well Said. I wonder if Google was really thinking before they made this move.
Posted by Rose DesRochers | October 10, 2006 4:00 PM
Don't let Google's YouTube acquisition distract from challenges of meaningful innovation
Posted by Inside eWEEK Labs | October 10, 2006 4:32 PM
What has google really done well except for search and ads? And honestly their search isn't that superior any longer. So I constantly ask myself...what makes google so great? To me google has already lost thier "coolness factor" and they're only one bad policy or bad PR move away from becoming just another greedy corporate giant. They've definitely veered off course from their original mission...but I guess that's bound to happen when you talk billions in instant wealth.
Posted by Mr Bill | October 10, 2006 9:46 PM
Re Point #4, "Who will sue Google first?": "shallow pockets would keep it safe from legislation...legislation would seem inevitable". I think the word Mr. Bryant was looking for was "litigation". I was going to try to email rather than point it out in public, but clicking on the "contact us" link (http://www.ziffdavis.com/contactus.htm) led to a 404 page. Sigh.
Posted by I.M. Pedantic | October 11, 2006 12:45 PM
They just spent $1.6 Billion on a pair of loose fit Levi's. So what happens tomorrow when loose fit's are out, and slim fits are in? That's a big chunk of change for something trendy that may be supplanted tomorrow by something cooler, that has been proclaimed the new in spot. If Google is smart they will stop payment on the check!
Posted by angryhippy | October 11, 2006 2:06 PM
Oh, brother, it's the "what can Google do well other than search" old saw. {yawn} Come up with some better FUD, eh? Google does a lot that is better than the competition -- gee, let's compare Google Maps to MapQuest (better not, for MapQuest's sake, because Google Maps is vastly better). Let's compare Hotmail {cough, cough} with Gmail (better not, for Hotmail's sake, Gmail is vastly better). What can Google do well other than search? A lot!
Posted by Critical Thinker | October 11, 2006 3:25 PM
$1.65 billion is a lot of money for a site that still hasn't figured out a way to make a buck. One would expect to pay a lot for a business where the barriers to entry are high, but YouTube barely has a substantial track record, doesn't have unique technology, and faces competition from other start-ups, not to mention Yahoo and Microsoft. As fast as YouTube rose, it could fall into oblivion. Is the the next example of a AOL/TimeWarner hookup where AOL wanted to get content to fill its pipes?
Posted by Tutman | October 11, 2006 6:02 PM
Don't let Google's YouTube acquisition distract from challenges of meaningful innovation
Posted by Inside eWEEK Labs | October 12, 2006 5:41 PM
What a week! We saw a big merger, information on new chips, and a bunch of activity on the software front....
Posted by Forward Thinking by Michael J. Miller | October 15, 2006 10:49 PM