Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: phranque
YouTube, the leader in Internet video search, said on Sunday viewers have are now watching more than 100 million videos per day on its site, marking the surge in demand for its "snack-sized" video fare.
Since springing from out of nowhere late last year, YouTube has come to hold the leading position in online video with 29 percent of the U.S. multimedia entertainment market, according to the latest weekly data from Web measurement site Hitwise.
YouTube Serves up 100 Million Videos Daily Online [today.reuters.co.uk]
"The DVD-burning software from Sonic Solutions, of Novato, Calif., would have copyright protections built into it so that a customer couldn't make repeated unauthorized copies of the movie. Right now, consumers can purchase or rent movies online from Movielink and its competitors, but they can't burn them onto DVDs. Instead, they can watch them on their computers, burn them onto discs that work only in computers, or rig up a home-networking system that streams the movies onto TVs."
I'm so old I remember when there were just three channels of TV. Soon (now?) there will be unlimited channels of video.
I think, post embedded videos now because YouTube may not be here soon. I see no revenue earning model.
Anybody care to chime in on what you think the revenue model is and how much cash they are burning through right now?
My kids and their friends really like youtube, but I don't know anyone who spends hours on their site who is old enough to have their own credit card and is able to purchase items online.
[edited by: Jane_Doe at 12:46 am (utc) on July 18, 2006]
People said the same things about Google...
I don't think most people said that about Google. They've had an obvious revenue model for a long time, almost the beginning of the company. Even went they weren't selling contextual ads they had plenty of advertising to support text delivery.
Search can be done with minimum infrastructure. For example, Gigablast. Wikipedia is another mainly text-delivery system which has minimal infrastructure and costs vs. users.
Audio/Video is a completely different beast. It requires way more minimium infrastructure (on a per user basis), also it's much more difficult to scale.
In other words, each user represents a much larger cost.
Therefore the margins would be lower on comparable advertising. Also, it is more difficult to do contextual advertising which means a lower CPM.
Am I wrong?
It's interesting to look at some of the numbers on delivering various content (back-of-the-envelope comparison only).
For example, Wikimedia delivering mainly text uses the following in it's main colo: 130 servers, 200-350Mbps, 1000-3000 hits/s ¦ 150M hits/day.
According to the wikipedia entry on streaming media: "One hour of video encoded at 300 kbit/s (this is a typical broadband video for 2005 and it's usually encoded in a 320×240 pixels window size) will be: (3,600 s · 300 kbit/s) / 8,388.608 = 128.7 MB of storage if the file is stored on a server for on-demand streaming. If this stream is viewed by 1,000 people, you would need 300 kbit/s · 1,000 = 300,000 kbit/s = 300 Mbit/s of bandwidth"
So in other words, if I understand this correctly, 1000 hits watching video for an hour (at that encoding) would require the same amount of mbits (bandwidth) as 1000 hits ***per/second*** reading wikimedia pages. Think about the infrastructure to scale up to the kind of user traffic that Wikimedia has...
Any multimedia technical people out there to throw out some numbers on how much more difficult it is to serve multimedia content?
Regardless of Youtube's future: You make it sounds like VCs never make any mistakes, or never fail.