Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Media Stats The Media Youtube

Over 100 Hours of Video Uploaded To YouTube Every Minute 83

Posted by samzenpus from the looking-at-the-numbers dept.
jones_supa writes "Google's YouTube is celebrating its 8-year birthday, and at the same time they reveal some interesting numbers. 'Today, more than 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. That's more than four days of video uploaded each minute! Every month, more than 1 billion people come to YouTube to access news, answer questions and have a little fun. That's almost one out of every two people on the Internet. Millions of partners are creating content for YouTube and more than 1,000 companies worldwide have mandated a one-hour mid-day break to watch nothing but funny YouTube videos. Well, we made that last stat up, but that would be cool (the other stats are true).'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Over 100 Hours of Video Uploaded To YouTube Every Minute More

Over 100 Hours of Video Uploaded To YouTube Every Minute

Comments Filter:

  • Where's the obvious second half of this statistic? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeffb (2.718) ( 1189693 ) on Monday May 20, 2013 @11:12AM (#43774089)

    How many hours of video per minute are people watching?

    • And even scarier, how many hours of video on YouTube are WORTH watching?

    • Re:Where's the obvious second half of this statist (Score:5, Funny)

      by robthebloke ( 1308483 ) on Monday May 20, 2013 @11:21AM (#43774185)
      But more importantly, how many cat videos is that per hour?

      • Well, the total in 2009 was 110,952 [yahoo.com] according to Yahoo Canada, fwtw. So 27,738 per year and 76 per day, assuming 4 years of non-stop uploading, slow at first of course but reaching high volumes soon enough. Meow, or should we say nyan? But 111k sounds wayyyyyyyyyy too low...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Seumas ( 6865 )

      None, because 35 hours are chicks showing their tits and making vapid "replies" to popular videos. Another 25 hours are chicks with 20 minute videos doing makeup tutorials, 20 hours are chicks coming home from shopping trips and showing what they bought (I'm serious, this is apparently a fucking "thing", now). The remaining 20 are idiots attempting to make viral videos, but possessing no talent. Or jackholes in their basement trying to be the "next big star" like the other 800 obnoxious teenagers with cult

  • Have they hit a petabyte yet? (Score:3)

    by scottbomb ( 1290580 ) on Monday May 20, 2013 @11:13AM (#43774095) Journal

    I wonder how big, in terms of storage, is the server farm to maintain this monstrosity.

    • It's Google's infrastructure. THAT's how big.

      If I had to guess, youtube is just another app sitting on their distributed whatever it is.

  • In a way Youtube beats time... but that gives an idea of the bandwidth available upstream (downstream being even more monstrous)
  • Some large and influential copyright owners are unhappy with the OCILLA safe harbor as interpreted in Viacom v. YouTube and have pushed for requiring each uploaded video to be reviewed by a person before it goes live. How much would it cost to employ people to watch 100 hours of video every minute?

    • How would you train all those people to recognize every copyrighted item? Just every copyrighted piece of music would be impossible. A computer is going to have a lower error rate on this than any group of humans.

    • 100 hrs/minute is 6,000 hrs/hr, so you'd need 6,000 people employed around the clock. It's probably close to minimum wage work, so $10/hr or so, puts that at $60,000 per hour or $1,000/minute.

      • And just extending your calculations: 6,000 people employed around the clock at $10 per hour (or more people working shifts so you get 6,000 people working every hour for 24 hours a day-7 days a week) is $60,000 per hour or $1,440,000 per day or over $525 million per year.

        Total Google revenues for 2012 were $46,039,000,000 so the "Review Uploaded YouTube Videos" department would cost Google 1% of it's revenue every year.

    • I've got an idea to fire back at them. Require all takedown notices to be reviewed by a human person before being submitted. Then in exchange, Google will promise to have a human review each takedown notice on THEIR end as well. If Google finds a violation - they take it down. If they don't find a violation - the people who sent the complaint are billed for Google's review time!!

    • They already have millions of reviewers looking at the crap all the time. Just put a 'is it copied?' button next to the video, and after 100 clicks have somebody look at it.

  • Doing my part (Score:3)

    by WillgasM ( 1646719 ) on Monday May 20, 2013 @11:17AM (#43774141) Homepage
    I've been doing my part by uploading inane videos [youtube.com] of myself eating at my desk in silence.
  • How can this be a sustainable business model?
    No, i have no background whatsoever in economics and\or management.
  • It's safe to say that Google acted wisely when they bought YouTube, despite the fact that it was losing money (and continued to for a few years).

    I wonder how things have turned out if MS bought YouTube instead?

    • Re:Good Buy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by oGMo ( 379 ) on Monday May 20, 2013 @11:52AM (#43774483)

      Same thing that happened with hotmail. They switch to Windows servers, it crashes and burns horribly, so they switch back. There's no quality control, no development, it goes to hell, and everyone switches to the far superior service Google offers (since they decided to grow their own and not acquire youtube).

      Then they switch everyone over to zune.com or something to try capitalizing on their name .. or perhaps trying to gain a name, it's hard to tell really .. complete with commercials about people deleting hundreds of hours of video in a single click in the middle of other unrelated activities, because you know that's the feature we've all really been missing.

      • They switch to Windows servers, it crashes and burns horribly, so they switch back. There's no quality control, no development, it goes to hell, and everyone switches to the far superior service Google offers (since they decided to grow their own and not acquire youtube).

        Citation needed.

        Anyway, try Outlook.com sometime.

  • More nines (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Theodore Sturgeon once snapped at critics of science fiction by saying "90 percent of anything is garbage." This "law" has since been ported to other fields.

    But in the case of YouTube, Sturgeon's Law would need a few more (or a lot more) nines.

    • In my mind there is a curve of useful information which started out exponentially when the internet started and is now horizontally approaching an asymptote. The amount of total information, however has continued to grow exponentially. Thus the need for services such as google, bing, yahoo to help us to sort through the endless streams of junk to find the one or two nuggets of information worth having.

  • So how long... (Score:3)

    by opusman ( 33143 ) on Monday May 20, 2013 @11:24AM (#43774221) Homepage

    ...until the total length of video on YouTube is greater than the age of the universe?

    • Re:So how long... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zordak ( 123132 ) on Monday May 20, 2013 @11:36AM (#43774333) Homepage Journal
      The universe is approximately 13.7E9 years old. There are 8.766E3 hours in a year. Thus, the universe is approximately 1.20E14 hours old. So at a rate of 100 hours per second, it would take 1.20E12 second to exceed the age of the universe in YouTube videos. 1.20E12 seconds works out to around 1 million years. So we have a way to go still.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pembers ( 250842 )

      About two million years at the current rate. Of course, if the rate of uploading continues to accelerate as it has been doing, they might get there a bit sooner.

    • At 100 hours per minute, youtube is filling at a rate of 6000x real time (6000h/h).

      Age of the universe: About 13.8 billion years.

      13.8e9 years / 6000 = 2.3e6

      So, assuming a constant upload rate (a huge assumption): in 2.3 million years.

      (I should have includeed the additional age of the universe until this happens,
      but that's less than a rounding error at this precision.)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gmhowell ( 26755 )

      ...until the total length of video on YouTube is greater than the age of the universe?

      Considering the universe is 6000 years old, 6000/100 HPM= 60 minutes.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday May 20, 2013 @11:28AM (#43774257)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You can always take a peek inside [google.com] to find out.

    • You say that, but I've looked at videos that buffered at low resolutions even though I could watch a popular, high-resolution video without buffering. So, yes, you can access any video but you probably won't enjoy it.

  • there's something for everyone (Score:3)

    by HPHatecraft ( 2748003 ) on Monday May 20, 2013 @11:38AM (#43774347)

    I have to exert some willpower now and again to not become annoyed at all of the garbage on YouTube (or the Internet for that matter).

    The wisdom of George Carlin is immensely helpful in this regard: "Have you ever noticed that their stuff is **** and your **** is stuff?"

    RIP, sir.

  • In original Star Trek the warp number seed was the cube of light velocity. 100 hours per minute is a 60,000-fold factor or 39-cubed. Even at that speed it would take a year and four months cross the Milky Way from one side to another.
    • They changed it to be a logarithmic scale where 10 was infinite velocity. This happened sometime in The Next Generation, as they did go "over warp 10" in one episode.
  • 100 hours a minute, and only .00001% worth watching.

  • Seems like any time someone has a popular video, another user rips it and uploads under their username it to steal hits. The copies and compilations make it really hard to find original content when you're doing searches.

  • Reposts? (Score:3)

    by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Monday May 20, 2013 @12:26PM (#43774785)

    How many of those uploads are reposts?

    Many popular videos have numerous low quality reposts with appended logos, intros and captions so that individuals can glom onto the original popularity. It's so bad that it's often impossible to find the original video a year, sometimes months, after the original posting.

  • Makes me wonder how fast they are having to add storage. For that matter, what type of storage are they using to use for the constant read / writes. And that is just for YouTube - forget Gmail, Google Earth, Google Docs and Google. Man, I would love to see pictures of Google's DataCenter. Oh, wait, I can Google it:
    http://images.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=891&q=google+data+center&oq=google+data+&gs_l=img.3.0.0l9j0i10.648.2409.0.4177.12.11.0.0.0.0.297.1 [google.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel

Close