Subscribe

Resources

« Analyzing YouTube's Revenue Potential | Main | How Mortgage Collapse Could Wallop GOOG, YHOO, RATE, et al »

August 23, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451656f69e200e54ecebb4a8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mary Meeker's YouTube Math :

Comments

Charlie Wood

Mr. Blodgett,

Ms. Meeker's math may be off, but it looks like she's not alone. According to my calculator, one thousandth of $4.8 billion is $4.8 million, not $48 million. Then again, what's an order of magnitude between friends? Dude, this is Google!

Regards,
Charlie

phoneranger

I guess video-on-demand really doesn't scale. $1.6B too late for GOOG.

Neal S. Lachman

Amazing! For Mary Meeker's sake, I was hoping you were wrong. So, I took the time to read through her report and checked out what her fundamental research pointed to. But Henry, you are right (as almost always).

This is a blunder of the first order. Did MS and/or Mary correct this, or did they offer a rebuttal?

kumars

Including cost of delivering those streams, this is what it may look like:

Using Henry's data, to generate $400K/mo:

monthly video streams: 2,000,000,000.
assume duration of video streamed on average: 6 minutes
assuming 300kbps, amount of data transferred a month =
(2x10^9) X (300kbps) X (6x60 seconds) / (8x1000x1000) GB = 27,000,000 GB.

for breakeven, cost of delivering 1 GB has to be $400k/27000000 = $0.014 or 1.4cents/GB.

Market rates for BW are atleast 15X the above number!

GOOG's internal BW rates may be lower but still...

(i) Users are going to want better than 300kbps - so data demands will increase over time and youtube will have to keep pace.
(ii) Bandwidth costs do not scale down like processing/storage costs do.
(iii) CPMs are not going to increase much more than $20. With fragmentation of online video market, possibly CPMs may go down.
(v) Calculations above dont take in account that 15% of revenue goes to partners but they dont share the BW cost.
And there are lots of other operating costs....


greentea

Also, Google's *net* revenue is not 16.4B, that is the gross revenue. So the percentage computation is strange - the net YouTube revenue as a percent of the gross Google revenue. Had she used the real net number for Google, the percentage would have been even more absurd.

Neal S. Lachman

Kumar,

First, I believe Google only keeps 15% and 85% goes to the content partner; you got it the other way around.

Second, you are right about bandwidth requirements. This is something that not only Google, but all online content aggregators/distributors, will face. The solution for Google is to own their own backbones, which will cost billions of dollars, or to partner up with companies that own broadband systems and backbones.

typemike

Great story, Henry. My experience in the internet biz is that there is quite a bit of diversity in revenue and cost metrics, but CPM is what it is!

longteng.ws

However you came to learn about Global Domains International, get ready for your life to change for the better, forever.

You will soon join a global family of thousands of excited individuals, from all walks of life, in more than 180 countries worldwide.

1000s of people worldwide are earning quiet fortunes, from their homes, even while they sleep. Are you next?

Income For Life? GDI 7 Day Free Trial

http://website.ws/longteng

sohbet

thanks admin good post

sohbet-sohbet odaları
- chat

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Sponsored by

Sponsors