Arrington puts the odds at 40%:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/10/06/completely-unsubstantiated-googleyoutube-rumor/

However, I seriously doubt this is true. If a deal is going on, I bet large amounts of money that it is an advertising deal involving Google's video ads inserted in You Tube videos, with similar financials to the myspace deal. It is just way too different to previous Google deals to be an outright buy, and doesn't make stratigic sense.

it makes perfect sense to me. Google Video hasnt been a runaway success compared to YouTube.

Yes, but Google has never bought anyone for their community, only for their technology. (Apart from Blogger, possibly)

They don't *need* to buy You Tube when they can supply them with ads instead and avoid the risk

<<Google Video hasnt been a runaway success compared to YouTube.>> Google Video used to remove copyrighted/porn videos quickly. I think they've slowed down now, but YouTube is full of that stuff.

Never, never, never, I bet anything. There would be too many difficulties. Google wouldn´t abandon YouTube design etc. and move everything to Google Video instead. They also cannot close Google video concept, which is simply better for their purpose in longer term – TV 2.0. YouTube will day in the same day when somebody find an usable business model for television of new generation, when somebody is able to push web clips to TV box in the living room, when big producers of quality content find that they can monetize it very well.

Even I think that Google will not buy YouTube because Google Video has picked up a lot than what it was in the starting and if you compare both the services you'll find that Google Video is much better than YouTube. Rather they'll improve Google Video and they'll go ahead of YouTube.

People love Youtube just for the reason that it has got lot of sharing capabilities and because of design....do'nt be surprised if Google decides to change the interface of Google Videos and then you see all Youtube fans running towards Google Videos :)

Oh I hate YouTube interface, so I hope Google will remain as it is – focused on videocontent. But recent changes with Google Reader convinced me, that Google could also go backwards.

The new Google Reader is the best google product ever made. I use it every day now.

a worthwhile comment on Mike 's posting reads like ;

"As we’ve seen in the past, you have the ‘ability’ to go from 99% accurate to 95% inaccurate. What do others get? Disappointment. What do you get? 100,000 more people visiting your site. "

"Arrington, you’re just getting ridiculous. You ” . . . confirmed that the rumor is circulating. . .”

So TRUE!!

<<The new Google Reader is the best google product ever made. I use it every day now.>>

Same here. I love it!!

More credible source (The Wall Street Journal): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116014813857884917.html?mod=home_whats_news_us

New Google Reader is simply worse than the previous version. Which new feature have you appreciated? I don´t know anything what improved the speed of reading – and that´s all what I expect from RSS reader, be fast, be easy.

Information about potential Google-YouTube deal is comfirmed by WSJ. Strange.

Ok Niraj, 14 seconds, but you even have the link. :-)

haha, what timing :)

When did WSJ become a "More credible source" ??

Than TechCrunch? Since whenever TechCrunch started.

ha ha ha! good one there...Sam :)

I am not sure why you all guyz don't like Techcrunch but I think it is one good source to find out various new web 2.0 products but as far as Arrington's point of views are concerned...then I am with you guyz :D

/pd, As you had quoted way above, TechCrunch has reported on rumors before and quickly changed from calling something accurate to inaccurate. Also they admitted they were going on an anonymous source.

In contrast I see WSJ as a large organization that has a larger level of responsibility and credibility because they are not just a blog. Most of this stuff is in print, and they acknowledged that TechCrunch had reported it earlier as a rumor. But they waited until they could cite their own source.

Of course, none of this means much. They may both lack credibility....it's just my impression that WSJ is more credible.

Only because he has been known to insult Google products do you think that.

-TD-, not so. See my response to /pd above yours.

TechCrunch in general is quite good source of news about interesting start-ups, but it´s always better to find information elsewhere after.

WSJ I see as serious source which is usually well-informed about Google – remember Pack, Checkout...

Gah, I really hope Google don't really purchase them, I know they are getting desperate to offload some of their cash hoard, but this seems like such an unwise decision to me. Of course its likely I don't know what I'm talking about.

I still think it would be far more effective to get an ad distribution deal with much reduced liability, but maybe they are regretting missing their chance to get myspace and are responding with this.

It just seems so counter to Google's philosophy and past deals. Meh.

Niraj : I think the point in making is "no source" is credible when its an its terms as "rumored" or when even the WSJ states – "discussions are still at a sensitive stage and could well break off,” which is newspaper lingo for “don’t hold it against us if this big scoop turns out not to be true."

Sam : "Since whenever TechCrunch started" – huh ??

Do you remember the hype of Edgeio ?? Whatever happened to that web2.0 startup and we all know who is the main person behind that venture!! Why is that company not in the deadpool2.0 eh ??

I couldn't agree more with the all of that post Peter. Edgeio is the dumps.

When it comes to Google-related news, the WSJ has gotten it wrong a couple of times, or at least got details/ timing wrong (sometimes due to technical misunderstandings, possibly). E.g. in June 2005 they wrote:

<<Google Inc. this year plans to offer an electronic-payment service that could help the Internet-search company diversify its revenue and may heighten competition with eBay Inc.’s PayPal unit, according to people familiar with the matter.>>
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB111905141149263168-uKFxsKiPCrP8NxCA_lJid2X_3FM_20050718.html?mod=blogs

hands up who uses Google Spreadsheets every day? or who uses Google Gadgets? or ... insert new google idea here.... hmm.. not many i guess.

besides Gmail, almost NONE of the new google ideas have really captured the mass market to the extent that YouTube has. YouTube has a seriously big mindshare out in the marketplace.

it just makes perfect sense for google to capture that traffic. i dont think they'll integrate it into google video – they'll just leave it alone, as they have with blogger.com.

heres another idea why google would buy youtube.
a lot of people use youtube to search for music videos – wouldnt it be great if you searched on say "madonna" and you had a panel telling you that she was due to have a concert this month in your city? a google map would be used to show where the concert is (or even a bigger map showing all the tour dates worldwide), and an adsense like panel would link off to ticketmaster. maybe even another panel so that you could buy the CD ,via froogle.
this would get around the copyright issues – youtube/google could point to the site and say – "look, userXYZ uploaded a video of madonna illegallly , and its very popular – just look at all these sales in froogle because of it". its a compelling argument.

youtube just screams out "integration" .. and i think google have a lot to offer to make the youtube experience even more sticky.

just watching CBS news now – the youtube/google thing is on.

wow – they just quoted the $1.6 billion dollar estimate.

"60% of all internet video traffic"

on a YouTube related note, Ask.com has added a YouTube "smart answer" with direct links to most popular videos, Categories, and Help.
http://www.ask.com/web?q=youtube&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir

Ask also provides Smart Answers for Google:
Direct links to Gmail, Maps, Earth, and Images along with a stock price.
http://www.ask.com/web?q=google&qsrc=1&o=0&l=dir

and Yahoo
http://www.ask.com/web?q=yahoo&qsrc=1&o=0&l=dir

> "60% of all internet video traffic"

I wonder how they come up with that figure...

Mr. Marc "I've Got An Opinion" Cuban explains why acquiring YouTube
would not be a good idea (putting it mildly) in a post from about two week' s ago titled:

The Coming Dramatic Decline of Youtube
http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/09/17/the-coming-dramatic-decline-of-youtube/

He lists two main reasons:
1) Free Hosting from any 3rd Party site

2) Copyrighted music and video.
He writes, "Take away all the copyrighted material and you take away most of Youtube's traffic. Youtube turns into a hosting company with a limited video portal. Like any number of competitors out there that decided to follow copyright law."

You guys have to remember all the times that communities have been bought up by other providers and then people have fled the scene because they really don't like the new companies policies or their revisions. If google stays hands-off and uses the service as a revenue option

I think this thing could work, but if they start changing things in the service, people could run off just as fast. Internet/Web uers are fickle like you wouldn't believe. I know I am.

I just thought of something.

Didn't Google buy Dejanews (was that the new ?) for its "Archives" and create Google Groups ?

Is a similar thing possible ? But 1.6 Billion USD is a bit too high.

> Then again, you can’t just buy a community...

I don't see why not...

> > Then again, you can’t just buy a community...
>
> I don't see why not...

Let's say I'm a YouTube lover and part of the community and providing content for them, and let's say Google buys YouTube and wants to integrate the service into Google Video – now, converting the video files is easy (like they once converted the Deja News Usenet archive to their Google Groups service, as Sohil mentions), but that doesn't mean I as YouTube user and content provider will stick around... I might leave somewhere else because I don't like Google Video as much! Thus, Google Video would've bought a site but not the whole community associated with it (all the people making that site tick). Of course, you can make a community switch services, I'm just saying it takes more than buying a site.

oh, ok, i see. But they'd still get a very, very significant portion of the community. I don't think anyone loves youtube for its banner ads, for instance. Google could change that for the better.

If there was lots of press, and they just treated like a name change (almost like when Jif became Cif), then it should be ok.

Quick someone buy GoogleYoutube.com/net/org

"Wall Street bankers believe a pre-emptive strike could see off a possible competitive auction for the site with Yahoo!, Time Warner and Walt Disney all said to be considering a bid."

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1890705,00.html

So not only Google wants to buy YouTube, Time Warner and Disney (aka Apple) are interested as well.

And it is interesting, that Sequoia (a venture capital firm) has invested in Google AND YouTube in its early days... Maybe they are trying to exit :-)

"Sequoia (a venture capital firm) has invested in Google AND YouTube in its early days... Maybe they are trying to exit :-)"

Sequoia's exit strategy with google was the IPO. With Ytube, it will diffently look for the same thing. But the golden question is at bid price. $1.6B in cash buy out is possibe for google, but even just a stock option (Ticker:Gog) for YTube folks will also be lucrative.

Still the Value props in terms of revenue generation for this product will only remain with ad's. Ytube is ad free for the time being.

After marathon negotiations over the weekend, Google could announce a deal to buy YouTube.com, the popular video-sharing Web site, for about $1.6 billion as early as __Monday afternoon__, people involved in the talks said.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=8111

[via http://evans.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/10/9/2400913.html]

has anyone checked the gilmore "Gillmor’s gesture to Mr. Mike " ??

http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/index.php?p=519

Only a dumb can buy youtube
all the Majors (RIAA & co) are waiting a deal with youtube to sue Youtube and is owner about copyrights, in order to get more more more money back...

TOMHTML: I don´t think so. If YouTube be bought by some big company, they will make the same deal as now has Google with Sony and Warner. They understand, that online video has great potential. It´s completely different situation than with music. Music is distributed decentralized, the major problem is lack of control. YouTube is centralized model. and more – music you download and then listen hunder-times. Video you watch once, twice. That´s why DVD market haven´t been as affected by P2P as market with music.

http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/google_youtube.html is not available but at http://googlepress.blogspot.com/#116042577946045456