All The YouTube MeToos Combined May Not Be Worth $1.65B

from the the-best-laid-plans... dept

Fri, Mar 14th 2008 11:44am — Mike Masnick

As YouTube got super popular and eventually sold to Google for $1.65 billion, a bunch of other startups tried to hop on the bandwagon and become the "next YouTube" in order to cash out as well. In fact, some of them had actually been around since before YouTube, but morphed to make themselves more and more like YouTube, so that there basically are a large number of clones out there that don't offer very much in the way of differentiated functionality. Of course, through all of this, YouTube has continued to thrive and grow, meaning that these MeToo(b)s haven't found enough interest to really get very far. Some have a lot of traffic, but hosting all that video is expensive (as YouTube was all too painfully aware, as it needed to borrow $15 million just to pay the bills before the Google deal closed). So, now with so many MeToo players out there, and no one looking to swoop down and pay $1.65 billion for their traffic and indistinguishable technology, many are expecting something of a shake-out, as there are way too many players in the space, they're losing a ton of money, and none of them have done much to stand out or build something that others want to buy. Plus, with YouTube opening up its APIs it may be even more difficult for these clones to stay afloat.

Filed Under: online video
Companies: youtube

5 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hellsvilla, 14 Mar 2008 @ 12:19pm

not necessarily...
the MeToo(b)s could always make use of YuToo(b)s bandwidth by shifting the burden of hosting over to them. That API is already there, they just need to harness it and start moving their content.

Matter of fact, in that model the API could actually be what kills off youtube...

meh, hopefully, a balance will be found. google will not be the only online video host, just as there isn't any one host for any other content.

Or at least, we can hope. Remember, in a monopoly, the consumer always loses. No matter how good it looks on the surface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- notsosure, 14 Mar 2008 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re: not necessarily...
  What is the value of the MeToo(s) then by shifting the burden of hosting over to YouTube? Zero. No legit company will ever buy out a company doing as such. And of those that does survive, are probably small time mom and pa shop trying to leech ad clicks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hellsvilla, 14 Mar 2008 @ 2:17pm
    
    Re: Re: not necessarily...
    Why? There are many webhosts, with a near infinite number of websites, many of which using the same webhosting companies.
    
    Why do you percieve video to be so different from html?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ranguu, 15 Mar 2008 @ 9:49am

WILL ADVERTISING SAVE THEM?
Most of the sites, including Youtube have turned to advertising as a way to stem the red ink, Yet, that system is far from perfect as recently revealed on Veoh when Major Corporate sponsors found their brand logos inserted over hardcore you know what. This story from Planetpop.tv paints a funny but bleak picture of that situation http://www.planetpop.tv/culturetrends/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 15 Mar 2008 @ 3:52pm

I Don't Know...
YouTube has quite stringent restrictions in terms of file size and video duration compared to some of the smaller competitors and also lack a download function, which leaves a few niches open. Mind you, Google Video doesn't have that problem (I've seen 90-minute videos on there), so now they're owned by the same people I wouldn't be surprised if YouTube suddenly gets a lot more flexible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]