From “About VoIP“– yet another anonymous (ever heard of David Cowgill
? didn’t think so…) VoIP blog–

At least that’s what you would have to deduce from motor-mouth Mark Cuban’s recent comment that “you’d have to be a moron to buy YouTube”. Cuban later reiterated his dislike. Well, I’ve always thought Cuban was a moron and a few other choice words besides.

My take: Mark Cuban frequently comes off sounding like a moron, but then again, so do I. After all, he’a Web 1.0 millionaire living in a Web 2.0 world. He sounds an awful lot like Bill Gates sometimes. The reason he poopooed the Google idea is because he has a totally different idea for video on the Net, and, at least in some indirect fashion, this makes Google more of a competitor. (Google’s  already come out against the two-tiered idea Net Cuban seems to think we need.)

Then there’s Russ, who reminds us that GooTube already exists:

Seems like everyone in the blogosphere is mashing up the names of YouTube and their illustrious acquirer Google to be= GooTube. But I wonder how Eric Watson feels about that.

I know what you are thinking..cybersquatter who registered the name as soon as the blogger-slang for the YouTube-Google deal hit the Blogosphere. But that assessment wouldn’t be correct.

An Internet marketer from the gorgeous Puget Sound town of Mukilteo, Washington, Eric has owned the GooTube domain since October, 2005.

My take: GooTube sounds like a porn site. Hey, I wish it weren’t the case, but it is.

But wait, Russ has more, suggesting that Google is mostly interested in sticking ads on YouTube videos:

Say I own a travel agency specializing in trips to Italy. So I might be interested in purchasing AdSense ads on a page with Italy-themed title and tags. A page that I show you at the top of this post.

Wouldn’t have to be text-based ads either. Google could actually render the advert as a separate YouTube video-effectively using You Tube’s video play capabilities to monetize itself.

My take: I don’t think Google is going this route. Will they add text links to tagged videos? Almost certainly. Did they need to purchase YouTube to make this happen? Certainly not. They could’ve just paid YouTube an extra 5% premium on click and HAD all their advertising traffic. I think it’s much more about positioning Google to compete against Apple and Microsoft in the long run. The old phrase “content is king” certainly applies. With YouTube’s delivery mechanism and Google’s existing TV media deals, Microsoft will have nothing left to do but stomp their little feet and huff’n'puff.

Next up, Phoneboy, who says hold up, wait a minute, the deal ain’t done yet:

Whenever one company announces an agreement to buy another, many places speak about the deal as if it’s already happened, at least in the headlines. The latest example of this? Why of course the Google/YouTube transaction, which hasn’t happened yet!

My take: It’s a dead lock.

Then, there’s Techdirt, who asserts that Google’s purchase of YouTube have just been a case of the blues, fallout from having MySpace scooped out from under them by News Corp.:

Google already had a competing product that was doing well, but appeared to be a distant second in the hype game. Bringing in YouTube and combining the two (which will be done eventually, no matter how much they talk up the separation) does wipe out the competitor. Secondly, it keeps YouTube out of a competitor’s hands. This is probably a much bigger reason. It seems like some execs at Google really, really do regret not buying MySpace three months before News Corp. at half the price. At the time that tidbit hit the news, it seemed like an affirmation of Google’s philosophy to buy technology and build community, rather than the other way around. But, then, just a few months later, Google ended up agreeing to a $900 million ad deal with MySpace.

My take: MySpace is a blip on Google’s radar. If Google had wanted to do social networking, they would’ve. But it’s harder to sell ads on the substrate of social networking than it is on the subtrate of real content like blogs and news sites. Google may ultimately have been right to pass on MySpace, but time will tell.

Finally, there’s the always-proficient Om Malik, who wonders if Level3 might be the next Google takeover target:

Google’s tactical admission of middle age has everyone guessing who they are going to buy next. The kookiest of them all is Level 3 Communications, since they have all that fiber and connections within connections etc etc. Wall Street is buzzing with rumors about this, based on some analyst firm’s contention that the deal would make sense. Janco Partners analyst Donna Jaegers tells Denver Business Journal that it is just crazy talk. Sure Google could use all that fiber to build a big-honking GoogleNET but the deal is expensive. $6.3 billion in debt, and $6.18 billion in market capitalization. Yeah, that is too much for Google to take on. But then they bought YouTube!

My take: Level3 is a carrier’s carrier. How do they add value to the Googletopia? It’s easier to see Google gaining something from Youtube than from L3.