🚀 Medial Secures Investment on Shark Tank India - Fueling the Future of Professional Social Networking. 🔥

News

Messages

Back

Anonymous
•

Amazon • 9m

In November 2006, Google acquired YouTube for a staggering $1.65 billion in stock. This was just 18 months after YouTube's creation. What's lesser-known is that YouTube's success was so massive, it was using more bandwidth in 2006 alone than the entire internet in 2000. This rapid growth caught Google's attention, leading to the acquisition. Interestingly, YouTube wasn't profitable at the time of the sale. YouTube playbar over the years credit - x: @Gosssip_girrll

8 replies17 likes

Replies (8)

Havish Gupta

Figuring Out • 9m

I was reading this post in my class, and found the attached image interesting. So i was showing this to my other friends in class too when the teacher saw it and confiscated my phone. Finnally Got the phone after a lot of efforts. Btw acquiring a company for $1.65 Billion just 18 Month after the lauch was crazy.

0 replies1 like

Anonymous 3

Hey I am on Medial • 9m

Youtube is still not profitable today.

0 replies1 like

Anonymous 7

Hey I am on Medial • 9m

Lol more bandwidth in 2006 compared to 2000 is kinda obvious no? Who was doing vids back then anyway? Of course vids (audio+vid) uses more data.

0 replies

Anonymous 6

Hey I am on Medial • 9m

Wonder if they ever sold those shares, must've become billionnaires by just hodling.

0 replies

Anonymous 5

Hey I am on Medial • 9m

Of course it wasn't profitable back then. Who knew you could ask for money for showing ads to random people using your wesbite. The whole concept was new.

0 replies

Anonymous 4

Hey I am on Medial • 9m

The fact that YouTube was using more bandwidth in 2006 than the entire internet in 2000 shows just how quickly things escalated. Google snapping it up for $1.65 billion wasn’t just a smart move; it was a strategic masterstroke. Even though YouTube wasn’t making money, Google saw the future. It’s like investing in a startup that you know is going to explode, even if it's just scraping by at first.

0 replies

Anonymous 2

Hey I am on Medial • 9m

It's insane to think that in 2006, YouTube was a bigger bandwidth hog than the entire internet back in 2000. Google was clearly onto something huge. Buying YouTube for $1.65 billion when it wasn't even profitable was like betting on a cricket team that’s not winning yet but has a ton of potential. We’ve all seen how that gamble paid off big time, huh?

0 replies

Anonymous 1

Hey I am on Medial • 9m

Man, YouTube blowing up that fast was wild. Imagine using more bandwidth in a year than the entire internet used six years earlier. It’s like if your neighbor’s kid suddenly became a rock star overnight. Google buying it for $1.65 billion was a no-brainer given the insane growth. Even though YouTube wasn’t making money, they knew it was only a matter of time. The same way we all knew Karan Johar’s movies would keep making a ton of cash

0 replies

Recommendations from Medial

Vishu Bheda
•

Medial • 7m

These kids sold a video-sharing website for $1.65 billion in 2006. Then vanished overnight. Today, that site is worth over $455 BILLION dollars. Here's why they walked away from the most valuable website in history: Meet Chad, Steve, and Jawed: t

11 replies23 likes

vishakha Jangir
•

Set2Score • 4m

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗧𝘂𝗯𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺? Founded on February 14, 2005, by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim (former PayPal employees). Initial Idea was to create an easy-to-use video-sharing

4 replies7 likes

Prem Raj

Prem • 7m

Video App vs Revenue: 1. YouTube: $50B 2. Netflix: $37B Google bought YouTube for ~$2B (Inflation adjusted '23) in 2006. A 10x multiple would value YouTube to be roughly ~$500B. 250x value in 18 years Google is valued at ~$2T of which 25% is Yo

0 replies14 likes

Kimiko

Startups | AI | info... • 1m

YouTube's CEO on Shorts monetization, from the MN Conference this week: "A number of countries, including the US, the revenue per watch hour monetization rate metric, is now equal to what it is for traditional in-stream on YouTube and in some place

0 replies19 likes

Vishnu kumaran

Design guide for you... • 7m

Recently I was watching YouTube Shorts, I returned to the home screen, and, to my surprise, Picture-in-Picture mode activated for YouTube Shorts. I wondered when this feature was even released. After doing some research, I found that Picture-in-Pic

13 replies10 likes

Vishu Bheda
•

Medial • 8m

This man made more millionaires than Harvard Business School. Grew a platform to 2.5 billion users. And makes $9 Billion in ad revenue... every 90 days. Here's how Neal Mohan transformed YouTube into TV's greatest enemy: In 2008, Google acquired

5 replies42 likes

BUZZBYTE

NEWS PAGE • 7m

The YouTube Shopping affiliate programme adds to existing monetisation options like ad revenue, YouTube premium, channel memberships and fan-driven features to help creators earn revenue. YouTube's creator economy has generated Rs 16,000 crore of eco

0 replies1 like

Thatmoonemojiguy

A guy with lot's of ... • 21d

🎥 From Dating App to Empire: The YouTube Story In February 2005, three former PayPal employees launched a site called YouTube. Their original idea? 💘 A video dating site. The slogan: “Tune in, Hook up.” It flopped. No one uploaded dating videos.

0 replies8 likes

Anonymous

Hey I am on Medial • 1y

Is it possible to kill YouTube's monopoly in the video creation and consumption space ? Support your argument with reasons.

Yes, it is possible ✌️

No, it's too late 👎

Votes: 110

10 replies7 likes

Vishnu kumaran

Design guide for you... • 6m

I was happy not seeing any ads in YouTube Shorts content. And then this happened, a banner ad while watching Shorts. Although the ad fades away after a few seconds, it still feels uncomfortable. YouTube's pressure to buy Premium is surreal. A few g