`   == Google purchases YouTube == hi says that Google purchased YouTube for a dollar and 65 cents. one please add the much-needed ``billion`` in there?    : Conscious just fixed it. That would be a deal, wouldn't it?      ::I'd have paid $1.65 for YouTube. $1.65 billion, not so much. —  ::: LOL out of those two prices I'd say its actual worth would be closer to the $1.65 mark. Itelectual Property accounting has gone wild again. Wasn't that what caused the 1999 dot-com crash?   ::::What's the current buzzword again? Internet V2.0 or something. At least now we know how the next crash will be named....  :::::It's called Web 2.0   ::Google clearly just extrapolated this Google Trends chart.. looks like wikipedia's in trouble!   ::: If YouTube takes vandals away from Wikipedia, it's not a bad thing.    ::::here here!!!  :::I'm sorry, but I don't think that people are going to use YouTube for encyclopedic material. I don't think we have to worry just yet.     I'm not whether or not this is an error (in which case move to WP:ERRORS), but shouldn't ``Google purchases YouTube`` just be ``Google purchases YouTube``, since there is no article specifically about the takeover? ï  :Apparently it's been fixed. 1.65 billions? I thought that was millions, and I was already thinking it was weird for a non-material object.   ::Non-materialness doesn't mean something is worthless. Wikimedia is probably worth a good few hundred million by now –   :::Actually, if the contract stipulated no advertising (as we have now), Wikimedia would be worth zilch. That's how most online corporations, like Google, make their money (with a few exceptions, e.g. Amazon.com). —   :::Wikimedia is a non-profit organisation and I don't think they could be sold. For that matter, it's questionable why anyone would want to buy them. Would someone buy the Red Cross?   ::::I suspect some folks might have an interest in purchasing that particular organization.Such as The principal of Ludlow High School's Mr. Smith. He has been suspected of being a nosferatu. —  • 2006-10-13 15:14Z :::::I never implied that only material has value, but.... 1.65 billion? Come on! I bet it's more than the empire state building. An about byuing the Red Cross, or Wiki for that matter, there are certainly many people who could find a use to it... Say, as trivial examples, arms dealers, and lobby/propaganda professionnals... Or, in both cases, global advertisment agencies!! But still, 1.65... Does anyone have an idea of the quantity of video (in Go, To, or whatever) stocked in there?  ::::::It's not so much the material on YouTube (most of which, frankly, is either copyrighted or fairly rubbish) as the audience and the name of YouTube that Google is buying. That's what's worth the 1.65 billion.   :::::::Sure, but empty it out an see if the audience keeps coming, or if the name stands. Basically the principle is great, etc; but that's not what can make me assert YouTuba as a global phenomenon. Same goes for all these sites: clear wikipedia and see how many editors are willing to start again from scratch. It's basically a gravity/mass thing. You say they buy the gravitation field and the asteroid belt, I say they buy the planet/star/black hole to be. Same thing. 