|
I think one of the main philosophies behind the purchase was simple userbase.
We've seen it before - myspace getting sold for rediculous fortunes.
Time and time again companies are learning that they CAN'T create instant communities and projects that are viral, simply because they ARE large corporations.
Google may have spent a fuckload on YouTube, but they don't care, because they can afford it. Suddenly, they've got the userbase, the infrastructure, the brand - everything - of a site, and phenomenom - internet video sharing - that has eluded every major company since broadband.
This will become a bandwagon that media companies cannot afford to miss - already seen by the smarter media firms and film companies that are posting their own content..
You could easily argue that it was bought at a perfect time, by a company that has the backing. No doubt some will see this as an oppurtunity to sue big - but google is probably one of the only companies that can successfully defend against this.
If, on the other hand, this turns into a failure - not only will it take us all back a few internet years, but it will be a loss for everyone who participates in open media sharing.
Reality is - human nature does not comform with the business models that are currently in place around media and music. Times are changing. Suddenly, there's a solution that is established, which could finally bridge that gap.
If you're simply looking at this on a $ value, then you've missed the point.
|