If they had really grasped on to what we were doing back then, and ran with it, Yahoo would have come out ahead of YouTube, Google Video, and, I could imagine, many of the current streaming radio players out there now (lastfm, rdio, etc).
But that didn't happen. They silently killed off what they spent so much on to buy.
Broadcast.com was almost 10 years ahead of its time and probably would not have survived on its own. Yahoo made one of the worst acquisitions in history and then did the smart thing by cutting their losses.
Until around 2005 (when Flash Player 7 implemented progressive streaming) there was no good way to stream video on the internet and not enough users with broadband to build a big business around it.
YouTube was created at exactly the right moment, by a startup, which is how it would have happened regardless of what Yahoo did.
1a) i dont know, but I'm sure some of these other points aren't right
1b) true, in the official product offering, but scaffolding was there
2a) false and true (thanks to burn rate and earlier assertion being false)
2b) true (price required plan not supported after purchase) and true
3a) false (multibitrate Windows Media was fantastic with a great video and audio codec, while Flash was plain bad till H.264), and in the years you say there wasn't demand, we built a similar business that routinely helped customers reach hundreds of thousands or even millions of viewers at a profit for them and a profit for us.
4a) YouTube (non-essential/comedy/ugc content being perfect for a ubiquitous animation player supporting a crappy codec via pseudostreaming) isn't Hulu, and isn't Broadcast.com. Hulu secured content users want to pay for.
Yahoo needs users' attention.
This isn't totally correct. Nothing that we did back then, that was exposed to the public, would have offered an advantage for making a YouTube. We had built a system for Yahoo Personals to upload and stream videos, but this functionality was never really released to the public at large. I don't believe it had a big uptake in Personals so it was placed on the back burner.
We had the tools and systems in place to allow something like youtube, but it never saw the (public) light of day.
But, yes, you could be correct in that it would have just been at the wrong time. Who knows.
I'd put Hulu as one of the least likely companies to be acquired.
Yes I realize this is about Yahoo but I don't think they can afford it.
Hulu was only able to stay afloat because it was backed by FOX NBC and Disney, and got all those shows at a heavily discounted price. The networks were very cautious to not create an iTunes for TV that would grow to be too big to control, they use very restrictive and short term content license to ensure that.
the reason most TV shows aren't on youtube is not because the content owners don't like youtube, it's because the content owners and google can't agree on acceptable terms. buying hulu won't change that.
http://www.gtvhub.com/2010/11/21/comedy-central-mtv-nickelod...
Kilar gets online media, gets working with the content providers, gets ad driven content businesses.
Look back through "talent" buys... They tend to leave Yahoo more quickly than other buyers like Microsoft or Google.
