Posted on 10/06/2006 1:36:47 PM PDT by BenLurkin
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - The YouTube video-sharing website and Google internet giant sternly declined to comment on reports that they were discussing a 1.6 billion dollar takeover by Google.
YouTube workers ejected a television news camera crew that made its way into the popular website's non-descript office in the heart of San Francisco.
"We do not comment on rumor and speculation," said Google spokesman Jon Murchinson.
The young website was in the spotlight as the result of a Wall Street Journal report citing an inside source as saying Google was courting YouTube to the tune of 1.6 billion dollars.
The discussions between the companies remained "delicate" and could be stopped, the daily newspaper quoted the source as saying.
The report reinforced rumour that circulated in financial markets and the weblogs of high-tech industry watchers.
On the TechCrunch weblog, Michael Arrington claimed to have received an e-mail from "a very good source" indicating that Google's acquisition of YouTube was in its final stages.
YouTube soared to online popularity after its launch in February of 2005. The company claims that more than 100 million videos are watched daily by visitors to the free website, which features content provided by users.
The challenge for YouTube has become finding ways to make money off its broad range of online visitors, according to analysts.
By purchasing YouTube, Silicon Valley based Google would be able to apply its proven prowess for generating revenue through online advertising.
It would also be a formidable alliance of two of the Internet's major video sharing sites.
YouTube is worth 1.6 billion? Are we seing a new .com bubble in the making?
Hmmm ... that doesn't seem right.
Be back in a bit.
My point is, I've used Google a s asearch engine for years. I could not accurately name one company who advertizes on it without looking. Same for YouTube, though I rarely go there. Then again, I don't think I've ever spent money as a result of an internet ad.
Isn't this the guy (YOUTUBE) who said recently he would not sell, that he had enough money?
Well, hard to believe but . . .
EBAY has a market cap of $41 billion.
Yahoo's market cap is $35 billion
Google's is $127 billion so . . .
Often times these sales are based on stock options and not actual cash. The dollar amounts are usually estimated values based on projected future performance.
A friend of mine "sold" part if iFilm a couple years ago and the press releases quoted many millions of dollars, but in the end she wound up with nothing when the thing failed to generate the "projected" earnings.
Yes. I've never "clicked" on any internet ads (not intnetionally).
It may very well be a bubble in the making.
Insane. I really can't believe advertisers throw that much money at them. EBAY, maybe but the rest? Sounds awfully bloated.
Paging Mark Cuban.
Isn't Google talking about hosting their own streaming video service? This may be a case of snapping up a competitor just to shut it down and break it apart. $1.6 billion is chump change to Google - they could probably find that under the sofa cushions in the employee break room.
Try www.Dogpile.com to search.
It would stand to reason that Google would want to buy out YouTube since they are very liberal, pro-jihad....
Or get their hands on the proprietary technology.
Good point.
What proprietary technology? A server farm the size of a football field?
That too, not to mention getting hold of the content, deleting everything they find "objectionable" (i.e. conservative and anti-Muslim) and then putting the rest up as their own.
but with Google, algore can reinvent history.
but with Google, algore can reinvent history.
Foolish dot com logic
Note to self, don't invest in Google
TT
Billionaire investor and dot-com veteran Mark Cuban had harsh words Thursday for YouTube, the online site that lets people share video clips, saying only a "moron" would purchase the wildly popular start-up.
Cuban, co-founder of HDNet and owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, also said YouTube would eventually be "sued into oblivion" because of copyright violations.
Excerpt. Read more at CNET News.com
Some shareholders are going to take it in the shorts when Google stock drops, and it's their own dumb fault. I haven't seen any hint that they're cooking the books, and they stubbornly refuse to engage in revenue projections. They tell shareholders openly that they're not interested in sucking up to the Street by pumping up short-term numbers.
That said, Google has a P/E of 61.66, which is nowhere near the inflated numbers that Web companies had during the bubble years (most of which could not be calculated at all -- you can't divide by zero).
One smart thing Google has done is leverage its expertise -- a lot of their revenue comes not from advertising on their own site, but ads they place on most of the biggest sites on the Web, using their search expertise to match the ads to the content (occasionally with embarrassing results).
Amazon did something similar, selling their expertise in addition to selling stuff directly. If you order online from Target, Montgomery Ward, Toys 'R' Us, and a lot of smaller online retailers, you're going through Amazon. The old saying is that during a gold rush, some prospectors strike it rich and some go bust -- so the smart play is to go into business selling pans and shovels.
So, yeah, if Google can pick up YouTube for about 1% of its market cap, combining it with Google's own video service, it could pretty well corner the market. It's a good investment, even assuming that everyone involved knows that it's pretend money and will end up being worth far less than that.
In the same vein, AOL's buyout of Time Warner was a good deal -- for AOL. TW shareholders got screwed. AOL shares started tanking right after, but without the merger, it would have been worse.
AOL got Time, HBO, CNN, Warner Brothers, Warner Records, and a stake in TCI out of the deal -- companies that had real revenue and would still be around when the bubble burst. That's why AOL frantically cooked the books to make sure their stock didn't tank until after the merger was finished. It was a way for AOL to make sure their shares dropped from $200 to $20 instead of from $200 to $.02.
If Google is using its inflated stock to buy up properties that have a sustainable model, more power to 'em -- as long as they're not doing it fraudulently. If I'm the YouTube guy, I'd be looking at the terms of the deal more than the bottom-line number. If it's shares, and not options, you have to look at it like this: Even if Google stock drops by 90% before you can sell your shares, that's still a pretty comfortable $160 million.
Maybe they'll rename it GooTube.
I wonder if this has anything to do with You Tube removing anti-jihadists clips.
YouTube owners, IMO, should take the $MONEY$
and run. Whiler there is the possibility that
YouTube could mushroom..so will the headaches
of running it....$1.6 BILLION dollars will buy
not only a lot of Big Macs, but a lot of mansions
and learjets to eat them on..anf still have
100s of millions left over for the bext big ideas.
They should take the check, and run all the way
to the bank, and then they can *pay* someone to
laugh *for* them if they want!
Found this on YouTube: DIVINE WIND
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saQcZ3J3SgQ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.