4 ms·

YouTube seems successful because Google is paying for it. It's never made a profit.

by btym 9y ago

thevardanian 9y ago
No. It's successful as a profitable product otherwise you wouldn't have so many content creators get paid a lot of money for creating videos. It's ad revenue sustains itself, and those that create on it quite well.
- MediumD 9y ago
  You have any numbers to support that profitability claim? YouTube wasn't profitable when Google acquired them, and it wouldn't surprise me if they still were not profitable now. I'm sure they make substantial ad revenue, and it's entirely possible they are profitable. But running servers and content creators getting paid are not proof of that - Google has more than enough money to subsidize the endeavor.
  - myusernameisok 9y ago
    Google also seemingly hasn't been trying very hard to make Youtube profitable. Spotify has a free tier, but you only get the "standard" 160 kpbs bitrate, as well as ads. To get the "extreme" 320 kbps bitrate you need to subscribe. Youtube could have easily restricted 720p and 1080p to paying customers, but didn't. I think now it's too late for Youtube to reverse their decision on that without some backlash.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      Spotify also has other restrictions on the free tier, though (for example, you have to have a premium account to run Spotify on a Fire TV Stick (or any other Amazon device AFAICT)). Google/Alphabet might be able to get away with imposing similar restrictions on certain YouTube integrations without too much backlash.
- H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
  Actual YouTube-based advertising revenue is notoriously incredibly low. Most creators will ultimately make more money from Amazon affiliate links or sponsorships than Adsense. In terms of actual numbers, I've often hears that the Social Blade estimates are well above what actually ends up with creators.
- nrhk 9y ago
  I could be wrong but as of last year, YouTube is still a loss leader for Google.
- hobs 9y ago
  Youtube not only is not profitable as far as anyone knows, but has vastly reorganized its funding model for creators and most now make pennies on the dollar from what they did before. Youtubers themselves were screaming about this recently, and almost always with any algo/payout change, and that is pre-Youtube red renegotiations.

YouTube seems successful because Google is paying for it. It's never made a profit.

by btym 9y ago

YouTube seems successful because Google is paying for it. It's never made a profit.

No. It's successful as a profitable product otherwise you wouldn't have so many content creators get paid a lot of money for creating videos. It's ad revenue sustains itself, and those that create on it quite well.

MediumD 9y ago
You have any numbers to support that profitability claim? YouTube wasn't profitable when Google acquired them, and it wouldn't surprise me if they still were not profitable now. I'm sure they make substantial ad revenue, and it's entirely possible they are profitable. But running servers and content creators getting paid are not proof of that - Google has more than enough money to subsidize the endeavor.
- myusernameisok 9y ago
  Google also seemingly hasn't been trying very hard to make Youtube profitable. Spotify has a free tier, but you only get the "standard" 160 kpbs bitrate, as well as ads. To get the "extreme" 320 kbps bitrate you need to subscribe. Youtube could have easily restricted 720p and 1080p to paying customers, but didn't. I think now it's too late for Youtube to reverse their decision on that without some backlash.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    Spotify also has other restrictions on the free tier, though (for example, you have to have a premium account to run Spotify on a Fire TV Stick (or any other Amazon device AFAICT)). Google/Alphabet might be able to get away with imposing similar restrictions on certain YouTube integrations without too much backlash.
H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
Actual YouTube-based advertising revenue is notoriously incredibly low. Most creators will ultimately make more money from Amazon affiliate links or sponsorships than Adsense. In terms of actual numbers, I've often hears that the Social Blade estimates are well above what actually ends up with creators.
nrhk 9y ago
I could be wrong but as of last year, YouTube is still a loss leader for Google.
hobs 9y ago
Youtube not only is not profitable as far as anyone knows, but has vastly reorganized its funding model for creators and most now make pennies on the dollar from what they did before. Youtubers themselves were screaming about this recently, and almost always with any algo/payout change, and that is pre-Youtube red renegotiations.