Comments on: YouTube’s two success “secrets”

By: Mathew

Mathew — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:39:15 +0000

Webomatica, I would agree that Flash was an important factor — that’s a good point. It definitely made embedding easier, because it avoided a lot of the “you don’t have this plugin” frustration — not to mention getting around a lot of the craptacular qualities of RealPlayer and Windows Media.

And Seth, I’m willing to admit that having Jim Clark as a father-in-law probably helped — I’m just not sure it qualifies as one of the top three secret ingredients in YouTube’s success. Of course, you’re entitled to your own list.

By: pwb

pwb — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:35:22 +0000

I don’t think timing or Clark had much to do with the success. The embedding (right out of the PayPal playbook) and scaling were certainly key. Also crucial was going with low quality but fast loading Flash video.

By: Webomatica

Webomatica — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:30:48 +0000

From what I understand Flash video is used extensively by YouTube. Flash 8 came out at just the right moment for YouTube to use it rather than QuickTime, RealVideo, or Windows Media Player. It’s a big part of the embedding ability.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:10:43 +0000

Did I say *guaranteed* anywhere? That would be silly. Nothing in venture capital is guaranteed.

But if you’re going to argue that having a super-rich, ultra-connected, venture-capitalist father-in-law who in fact tried the same business earlier isn’t a factor, well, I think that’s an utter denial of social reality.

It just doesn’t make for nearly as inspiring a story :-(.

By: Mathew

Mathew — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:57:57 +0000

Did Jim Clark help them get money, Seth? I don’t see why just being his son-in-law means Chad would be guaranteed to have success with YouTube — it’s not like everything Jim Clark has touched has turned to gold. If he was the one who told them to allow embedding, then maybe I’d be willing to give him some of the credit.