As of the end of November, internet rating form comScore concluded that Google, Inc.'s (NASDAQ: GOOG) YouTube online video sharing service led all the U.S. online video competition, holding a 27.6% market share in September. It's no surprise -- if I were to ask 10 people where they could go to watch video on the web, my hunch is that at least 9 would say YouTube.

Was YouTube worth the billion-plus that Google paid for it? First-mover advantage is everything, and if Google can find a workable strategy to monetize the site, then most likely the $1.65 billion price tag won't look like very much. comScore also stated that Google-owned sites ranked as the top U.S. video property. In September, there were 2.6 billion videos viewed. 2.5 billion of those were via YouTube. I suspect the other 0.1 billion came courtesy of Google Video.

Coming in behind Google in September was News Corp's (NYSE: NWS) Fox Interactive Media, which includes MySpace, and Yahoo, Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO), which saw 387 million and 381 million videos viewed, respectively. Is online video beginning to compete more and more with broadcast television? It's not too hard to let the cat out of the bag with that statement, since over 9 billion videos were viewed online in September. An estimated 75% of American internet users participated in all that viewing. Yes, I would say that is competition.

During recent elections, we've consistently been told that Google (NYSE: GOOG)'s YouTube is becoming a larger and larger tool for political campaigns and coverage. We heard about the ability to spread a message through viral media and we saw how any poorly performed appearance could come back to haunt a candidate for months.

Recent months, however, have begun to show us the true value of YouTube. Starting with the Democrats' debate on CNN/YouTube, even the non-geeks and political nerds among us tuned in to watch an important debate. But this wasn't just a normal debate, it was progressive ... to say the least. Everyday people were able to ask questions that were pertinent to their lives, their families, and their money.

Now the Republican party is doing the same. On November 28, Republican candidates will take the stage and debate important issues, again with CNN and YouTube as the primary distribution channels. This is incredibly powerful as it will further establish YouTube as a legitimate website and brand, especially among skeptics who don't have experience using the site.

Is Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG)'s real goal with YouTube to monetize the video-sharing web site as more and more customers view video in addition to just viewing web sites? That's been the common perception ever since YouTube was acquired by Google last fall, but one thing you can't pass Google up for is its goal of making all the world's information searchable. With that said, is YouTube simply a tool to allow Google to possess the world's largest video database so that it can create future tools to allow future customers to search through that kind of material?

That notion would make the YouTube purchase quite an expensive tool in Google's toolbox. All things considered, the world's largest internet search engine didn't pay all that much for YouTube ($1.65 billion in stock) if it can leverage the extensive (and growing daily) database of video footage so that it can figure out how to make video content as searchable and relevant as simple web site links and relevant information are today for customers who perform Google searches at www.google.com.

Google is a master at trying to direct attention away from its true intentions, and in many cases, the market does not know what is going on even as the search king turns out this product and unveils that product. Its true intentions may not yet be known outside of the offices of Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt, but I do stand by my assertion that the be-all-end-all game of Google's strategy is to become the world's largest advertiser by way of connecting the most relevant buyer with the most relevant seller -- for any product or service in any country at any price. Oh, and Google will take a small cut of each transaction, of course.

With Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG)'s acquisition of video-sharing web phenom YouTube last year, the Internet search giant staked its claim to the online video realm. Like Orkut and Blogger.com before it, Google's handiness in social media needed to turn to video, and Google Video was not cutting it (nor was it designed to). YouTube, over time, will become an advertising-supported video site that will host user-generated content alongside studio-created content -- that is, if the studios would embrace changing times instead of being stubborn stalwarts like they always seem to be.

But, in usual fashion, Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT) may be looking to enter the "me too" party with a possible video website acquisition, as the world's largest software company seems to be in a perpetual state of "following the leader" in many areas, with Google out-innovating the software titan at many turns (not all, though).

With Microsoft's Soapbox now in the fray along with YouTube, is Microsoft eying an acquisition already? Rumor has it that Revver has caught the eye of Microsoft, and the company many be looking to acquire that property and inherit a built-in user base. It's much easier to buy customers these days than to build and grow organically (like Google did with YouTube), as a meeting between the two companies has been confirmed. Problem is -- both companies are being mum on all details. That generally means something is afoot. If it does happen, will Revver prop up Microsoft's online video ambitions. Can it?

[Disclosure: I own MSFT products as of 2-23-07]

It still amazes me that much of the mainstream media thinks that traditional television networks are at death's door due to web-based services like YouTube. Sure, you can get your video fix on YouTube instantly and you can find almost any kind of content easily. But there's one huge differentiator here -- the experience. Are all American video content consumers going to move over to their PC screens to watch tiny videos in a window instead of that nice, big television screen with stereo sound? Doubtful.

To me, YouTube is a swell novelty -- but it can't touch the experience of a television program on a bigger screen. Maybe it's just me. The same arguments goes for pirated video downloads. Why spend hours downloading content that *may* have dubious quality and horrid sound when you can rent a perfect copy with factory sound for a few bucks? Experience be damned -- just give me free (I guess this is what some customers think). But then again, YouTube has consumer-created content you just can't get on broadcast television -- and that is the kicker for many. It's *real* reality TV.

But YouTube does make the traditional networks create more compelling content to keep younger viewers and such. On that note, it looks like the traditional TV networks here in the U.S. are forming strategies starting now.

These networks seem to have a love-hate relationship of sorts with YouTube. Viacom (NYSE: VIA) just recently told Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) to take down all links to copyrighted content, and NBC has done the same (only to partner with the video-sharing site later). Do the networks see consumer-created content as threat/competitor, or do they just see YouTube as a simple way for copyright violations to prosper?

I found this piece over at The Fool pretty funny: visits to Universal Tube and Rollform Equipment -- www.utube.com -- surged 440% higher after the Google-YouTube announcement early last week. People, who apparently had never heard of YouTube but wanted to check out the company that Google was acquiring for $1.65 billion in cash, confused the two. Hey, Google could get into the industrial supply game if it wanted to I guess -- it's got its hands in the pockets of many other industries these days.

This one example of surging Internet traffic at www.utube.com is a perfect example of the premise of hype building and innate curiosity of what the media reports compared to what ordinary citizens crave -- and that's anything being punched up in the media to a fever pitch like, well, anything to do with Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) these days in many ways.

I wonder if some Internet dwellers who had never heard of YouTube now know the Internet video-sharing site just due to the Google acquisition announcement -- and how many of them have started poking around on YouTube looking at videos of dancing cats and kids throwing water balloons. Oh, what a monumental waste of time.

But, the penchant for people wasting time on the Internet is a prime right these days -- it happens at work all day long as the stresses of deadlines and occasional monotony gets pushed aside for a nice relaxing few minutes of funny video watching at YouTube. This fact seems to be lost on many detractors to the Google-YouTube marriage, who can't understand how Google is going to wrangle revenue from these "monumental wastes of time".

That's a right every American has, and many of us use it to the brim each day -- and that attitude won't be going away soon. As long as people continue to "waste time," YouTube may yet be something viable to Google after all.

Google ended the trading week at $427.30, a decline of $0.14 or 0.03% from Thursday's close. It's been a wild ride for Google this week in the news with the Youtube.com acquisition just now starting to die down a bit after much nuttiness this week.

The range of opinions on the Google-Youtube marriage has had everyone talking this week, with some completely agreeing with the move and others vehemently against it.

One thing that got me thinking outside of the Youtube spotlight this week, though, was Google's release of is Docs & Spreadsheets web-based word processor and spreadsheet program that some say -- a little incorrectly, if you ask me-- that this is the start of the end for local applications like Microsoft Office.

Although I do see web-based productivity apps continuing to make headway, local apps like Microsoft Office or the free OpenOffice suite will always be with until high-speed Internet access is as ubiquitous as th air we breathe.

Here are some GOOG highlights from this past week:

Reflecting on what is right about Youtube -- and why Google sought to buy it

Celebrity deathmatch -- Google CEO vs. Mark Cuban

MySpace now seeking even deeper relationship with Google

Google code search product immediately attracts hacker community

Google VP Marissa Mayer's no-nonsense approach to meetings

So, is Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt a moron? Charlie Cooper over at CNET ponders this question with great flair and also brings up a person whose blog I've been following for quite some time -- Mark Cuban. Cuban has been on record now -- many times, in fact -- saying that any company that buys YouTube is completely off their rocker.

And then, just about this time last week, vicious rumors started swirling like Midwestern tornadoes that Google was in fact in the process of acquiring the web's largest social video-sharing site. But, it's one rife with copyright problems that have been put a little under control, but not enough to satisfy Cuban -- and many others, for that matter.

Does Google see the future of the web with non-text and non-graphic interactions? Apparently it sees something, but even spending $1.65 billion in stock is just a small touch for Google and its war chest of cash. The purchase price was small, all things considered, but it must prove its value to GOOG shareholders in the years ahead.

After reading Cooper's column though, I couldn't help but be struck with a rather interesting similarity between what Cuban did over six years ago when he sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo! for over $5 billion. This has allowed Cuban to cash out handsomely, but was one of many idiotic mistakes made during the height of the dot-com boom when billion-dollar deals were floating around like crazy (deals that would later evaporate).

Perhaps YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley had this same mentality and decided to "cash out" of YouTube and leave a Internet bellwether holding the bag? Interesting parallel here, since I see many similarities between today's web environment and the one of 1999. So, who's the bigger moron in this situation -- Cuban or Schmidt? Only time will tell.

With Google's purchase of YouTube.com, there are about a billion questions swarming around the web today. Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) faces new challenges as it enters the uncharted territory that may bring even more riches to the Internet search leader as it desperately tries to jump out of the shadow of being a one-trick pony (Internet search).

Just today, Google unleashed its Google Docs and Spreadsheets web-based threat against office productivity suites like Microsoft Office. So Google is definitely in the game of trying to move outside the pure search arena and gain revenue streams from other areas (mostly with advertising vehicles). This is good, and as I've said many times before, this is a strategy Google has needed to follow for a while, and 2006 is shaping up to be a watershed year in that direction for the Mountain View, CA company.

With YouTube.com, though, the bad areas that crop up according to bloggers -- even famous ones -- are intense issues with copyright violations that *may be* plaguing the social video-sharing website right now (and in the future). Google will surely clamp down on the sharing of copyrighted content in an effort to remind copyright holders and content producers that it can have a socially-responsible video-sharing website that is not a haven for stolen pieces of video.

But, like Apple Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) and its apparent negotiations with movie and music studios, Google may have to enter the policing stage to ensure that if it wants to use YouTube to recruit advertising, it won't have questionable and stolen content all over the place. I doubt Google will put in place the strong, DRM-laced controls that Apple uses, but you never know.

While the Dow reached new highs today, that news was moot in the Googleverse, as yesterday's Google-YouTube marriage took the media for a ride this morning, taking bloggers everywhere with it. In fact it's just been 24 hours and already I'm up to here (holding hand above head) with the Google-YouTube fancy dance.

Time will tell if Google bowed to unforeseen future events and really saw the future of online communication in an interactive (hopefully) video market marked entirely by being an Internet presence.

The market really didn't yawn about the Google buyout, but just went straight to bed, sending GOOG shares to close at $426.65, a decline of $2.35 or 0.55% over Monday's close. One thing this may do, though, is pressure Yahoo! to make some kind of stupid mistake and pay a billion or more for Facebook.com. If that happens, I'll have flashbacks to 2000 when M&A activity at the height of the dot-com explosion was earmarked for disaster.

In fact, I see a little of this in the Google purchase -- how on earth does YouTube generate cash flow? Can Google transform it into an ad-revenue-generating powerhouse somehow? Google will most likely use YouTube to keep customers in its network, something that is job number on at Yahoo! these days.

It's Google against Mark Cuban after all, in a rather unique twist on celebrity deathmatch. Well, it's not that far gone yet, but yesterday afternoon's announcement that Google would be purchasing #1 video-sharing site YouTube.com in an all-stock transaction was not entirely unexpected. Google will now be the largest provider of online video with its Google Video service and now YouTube.com, although it will be keeping YouTube operating as an independent site with the same content it has now.

Although YouTube sounds like one of the early-day P2P file sharing websites/directories according to Cuban, the company *may* have a bright future in recouping money from advertising, a potential main reason Google bought it. But, what does this linkup have to do with Yahoo? Well, Yahoo! has also been trying to build up its video offerings and has done a great job at that -- after all, Yahoo! likes to build customer relationships that make the customer "stick" to the Yahoo! property.

So, this YouTube.com buy is a little like pulling the rug out from under that company's video efforts in a way. Rumor has it already that Yahoo! and Google fought a close battle all the way to the end to take home the YouTube.com prize, and Google finally prevailed. Now Google has to prove, over time, that this relatively meager all-stock transaction (at today's prices) will somehow help pad its coffers while not opening Google up to a litany of copyright issues due to all the pirated videos that are up for viewing right now on YouTube.

Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) shares ended the week up on a high note, as rumors swirled 'round Friday on a possible YouTube.com acquisition. Though Mark Cuban tends to decry any acquisition of YouTube -- something I mostly agree with due to YouTube's content and tons of risk -- Google would probably like to turn Google Video into YouTube.

Wait -- that makes no sense (or does it). Don't you just love it when a stock's performance goes nuts over a rumored acquisition that seems totally out of Google's character of past acquisitions -- and about a questionable pursuit at that?

GOOG shares closed Friday up 2.11% or $8.69 from Thursday's close to end the trading week at $420.50 per share. As Google turns to academia to let loose details on the most popular readings at the Google Books website as well as a global literacy program aimed at connecting all kinds of teachers and academic personnel to grow the global literacy rate, these are the types of subjects that are most likely more worldly-important that the acquisition of a video-search website -- albeit the most popular one on the entire Internet.

Here are some Google highlights from this past week:

Google takes it search expertise to the millions of lines of computer code

Google's place as a personal librarian

Google's AdSense search effectiveness

Google gets a reprieve on advertising copyright infringement dilemma

Is Google a $200 stock that trades at $400?