The funny thing about YouTube is that Google had a competing product at the time. Google Video was arguably better in all objective measures: better quality better speed better reliability So why did YouTube succeed and Google Video fail? Having worked at both Google and YouTube (I actually onboarded at Google the same day as the YouTube employees were onboarding and transferred to YouTube 6mo later) I have some ideas, but I'm actually curious to hear what other people think.
In 2006, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. 💰 YouTube's co-founders, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, the day they were acquired by Google. Today, YouTube generates $3 billion in revenue every 30 days and has over 2 billion monthly users. Beyond its financial success, YouTube has profoundly influenced global culture, continually introducing new features that maintain its relevance and growing in popularity. While Google has missed out on several acquisitions over the years, YouTube will always be a feather in its cap and one of the greatest startup acquisitions of all-time. #startups #entrepreneurship ____ Enjoy this? Follow Kevin Jurovich for daily startup & VC insights and the occasional meme. ✌️
Interesting perspective, Joe! The success of YouTube over Google Video is a fascinating case study in tech history. I wonder if YouTube’s early community engagement and user-friendly interface played a key role in its success. It’d be great to hear more about your insights from working at both companies. Looking forward to the discussion!
Google was an established entity and had to play by the rules — meaning, they had to respect copyright. Boo! No fun for people who wanted to share their favorite stuff. YouTube played fast and loose with copyright, so was a consumer darling and could do no wrong. Google knew that buying us would invite the lawsuits, that was the point: they did it to get clarity on copyright in the UGC age. And it turned out the people suing us were the ones uploading! 🤣
1. Didn't need to DL a video player; everyone already had Flash 2. Uploading was relatively easy; fewer speed bumps 3. Related videos -- really just the most popular videos 4. Support for embedded videos including boilerplate code widgets which made sharing so much easier (thus, increasing virality) 5. Greatly depended on DMCA to manage copyrighted content (which puts the onus on copyright holders to block content) 6. Partnerships with record labels to keep content live 7. Badass YT network config team to scale with streaming load Long story short: GV was technically better but YT was easier. Easier almost always wins.
Eliminate if not possible easily then Integrate (by buying) your core competitor with you when affordable as early as possible. In a prolonged competitive run, a company looses more (in revenue and strategy cost to stay competitive in market) by competing with a potential rival rather than buying it. It is a win-win strategy with look-ahead thinking. Company can save future costs in diverse ways in long run.
YouTube as a brand did a lot of heavy lifting -- at the time "internet video" wasn't a thing and consumers weren't aware of products like Revver, Dailymotion, Veoh, etc. Just the simplicity of the brand identity was enough for them to emerge as the first winner (plus it helped that big media went hard suing early incumbent Veoh for copyright infringement).
GV had to manually review every video uploaded to stave off being sued. YouTube didn't have any money and therefore wasn't worth suing until we had money.
It’s pretty simple…. Google always builds a robustly engineered system but struggles (even today) to turn anything into a usable product. At YouTube we had a fantastic product , user delight/experience, engagement, and traffic! Google had this robust video encoding and delivery system that nobody wanted to use. 😬
So crazy. Google knew they were getting a deal.
Where are they now ?
Co-founder, CEO at Circles | Startups & VC
1wYou should probably share first! You were there