Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

GooTube's a Goner



March 22, 2007 – Comments (2)

Ooops. It's not like anyone's been predicting this.


This is what it looks like when a "business" that doesn't really have a business plan is elevated to superstardom, and people forget about reality. GooTube was never doing anything that others couldn't do -- except for allowing its users to illegally upload thousands of copyright-infringing pieces of content.


Worse than that, it was a classic underpants gnome. It was collecting underpants, but there was no way to get to profit. The only hope was that the PITA of fighting GooTube's legions of faithful illegal uploaders would dissuade content producers from resisting. But resist they have.


Now that the big entertainment folks have resisted the GooTube blackmail, and realize they can control their content, and their brand, (as they can't when randoms upload their content, like this) GooTube will be stuck with nothing but low-value short clips of stuff that most advertisers won't want to pay to support. You know, garbage like this.


Good thing those two lucky kids sold when they did. They might consider dumping their GOOG shares as quickly as they can, too. After all, everyone else is. At least on the inside.


And when there's not much left on GooTube but litter-box vids and narcissistic teens talking nonsense to their webcams, and businesses taking advantage of Big Goo's free hosting setup (and laughing all the way to the bank) remember -- some of us told ya so.


2 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 23, 2007 at 11:07 AM, TMFCHarris (98.65) wrote:

I know you are a jacked in to /. and the like, but if you haven't seen this it is worth checking out. The bloggers thesis seems to be that primacy in video ads, and the technical infrastructure and bandwidth that requires, will ultimately be more than worth the 1B that GOOG paid for YouTube plus the 1B they will give to Big Media.

Report this comment
#2) On March 25, 2007 at 10:52 PM, vitalfoolish (< 20) wrote:

I have a pro-GOOG bias.  So perhaps it is not surprising I think Michi Kono's argument makes good sense.  And while my knowledge of copyright law is minimal, websites are protected from their users and, more importantly, fair use covers satire and educational aims.  I admit I'm not sure how much GOOG cares about protecting fair use for the sake of the public at large but if it coincides with their biz needs/vision I guess we'll take it.

But the insider selling seems like a red flag.  I hope it is just coincidental profit taking.  But it could also be (or look like) intentional profit taking right before a slew of "bad" news in the form of copyright lawsuits.  But the lawsuit has come and the price barely moved, and there is only one lawsuit (doesn't seem like a slew of lawsuits).  Plus the lawsuit can easily be leveraging by Old Media to get a better deal from GOOG.  If they somehow take market share from YouTube (which seems unlikely) then they have a great added bonus to their ploy.  But it really might just be a play for a better eventual deal with GOOG.

And for the record YouTube has been making a profit from its simple advertising.  It was making a profit at the time GOOG bought it.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners