but google has a track record of executing properly, without losing customers ... if they deliver as in the past, switchover pressures won't kill them. otoh, they need to innovate youtube and double the resolution.
What if ebay sold skype to google at a huge discount- google gets the technology and can start using skype in a wifi setup for their supposed gphone.
Sure, they might switch but then will the owners of said sites be able to continue funding them as they generally make no money? Personally I doubt that users will switch because a 5-10 sec advert won't put many people off especially if they WANT TO SEE THE CONTENT/CLIP. And that is one of the keys. I often watch things on Yahoo video or other large media sites because I want to (an interview with someone for example) and they normally have an advert there which I have no problem with. The ONLY alternative of course is not to watch it. Also, hard to compare Alta, Hotmail, Geo, ICG with Google right now. Of course YouTube might be overshaddowed by 2 kids in a garage but you want to bet on that or the favourite? Bookies drive flash motors and holiday in the West Indies because mugs like to bet on long shots. Right now YT has little if any competition PLUS they can populate their search results with video clips PLUS GOOG has mastered how to deliver quality content to the right people and once you've worked that out making money with advertising is the easy part.
Sorry but I dissagree The barrier to entry may be low in terms of start up costs BUT establishing marketshare is exceedingly difficult. Google, facebook, and youtube have nothign to fear
Marketshare of what? What market. A market IMO is a system that connects buyers and sellers. How does showing people ad free videos at no cost represent a market? Or running a free social networking site? That's not a market IMO, that's a waste of money trying to get the ever important eyeballs. Everyone thought Hotmail, Altavista, Geocities, ICQ, DIVX etc. had nothing to fear because they were thought to be de-facto standards. Standards change on the Internet in a heartbeat. Youtube could be history in 2 years. So far, I have not heard about a single viable business model for them. How on earth are they going to monetize their traffic WITHOUT seeing visitors leave in droves because either they do not want to pay or they don't like the ads? They can just goto Revver, Metacafe etc. in the blink of an eye and get exactly 1:1 the same thing. I have been wrong about Google before because they far exceeded the amount of profits I ever thought possible to be made by a search engine. But again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of any of their moves and all this Web 2.0 mumbo jumbo. There are very very few companies on the Web that make solid money (Billions are made in areas most underestimate because they're not on the radar screen of public companies: casino, sportbetting, porn, adult dating/matchmaking) versus a truckload of hollow Web2.0 startup outfits that will never make a single dollar as they just hope to be bought out for a couple hundred million by some public company.
Mak We disagree with YT but do agree on the web 2.0 crap. Most have zero chance of making a dime/cent/penny etc. What will be really interesting is what happens to the ultimate value of something like MySpace. News Corp bought it for $500m (I think) and I've read somewhere that they now value it at many billions (as you would) but what will the perceived value be in 5 years time? I'd put a few $ on it being less than $500m. Crappy site, full of kids/punks with no money to spend. So on one hand they get super amounts of traffic but it must be ultra low quality when it comes to spend value.
My marketshare I am referring to the 'pool' of internet users whom may or may not be aware of a specific niche of site. Currently, most internet users are aware of Youtube.