4 ms·

This is a pretty good idea. Google has been aggressively anti-competitive in the video space and the US government has made it abundantly clear that they don't

This is a pretty good idea. Google has been aggressively anti-competitive in the video space and the US government has made it abundantly clear that they don't care. Losing hundreds of millions a year for a decade just so no competitor could ever even hope to begin building infrastructure for a competitor has been very effective at shutting out all competitors. When traditional means are cut off through bad faith dealing like that, people have to get creative. And after reading 'The New Digital Age' where Schmidt makes his case for Google taking control of all of human culture with no more justification than 'we are rich, therefore better', I more than welcome anyone who stands even a faint chance of taking them down a thousand notches or so.

Eridrus 9y ago
Losing money to get to scale isn't anti-competitive, it's basically how any business with economies of scale gets started.
- ktta 9y ago
  It absolutely is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
  - uhhhhhhh 9y ago
    Or maybe not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader Loose money to attract users/creators who put more money into the system. I don't see how this would qualify as dumping in any way.
    - ktta 9y ago
      I don't think loss leader is the correct term either. YouTube doesn't make money, nor intends to make money in the near future[1]. The key here is to get entrenched in the market, then assert their monopoly. On surface this might seem okay, but it definitely is anti-competitive. We've just gotten used to it. Dumping isn't the proper term, but was the closest I could find. It comes under predatory pricing, but the problem is, this business practice is so different from what the current literature consists of, I don't think there even is a proper term. [1]: http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojcicki/ http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojc...
      - mulmen 9y ago
        Uh, isn't that just abusing their monopoly position? It's not a problem that YouTube grows, it's a problem when they abuse their monopoly position. This is why we (United States of America) have antitrust laws.
      - saalweachter 9y ago
        From your link: "That doesn’t necessarily mean YouTube isn’t profitable, but it just means it’s not a focus at the moment. YouTube, which primarily makes money from advertising within its videos, doesn’t release revenue numbers (it is not separated in financial statements by parent company Alphabet). But some reports put revenue in the billions."
        ktta 9y ago
        That sounds like corporate talk. It's been 11 years since YouTube has been acquired by Google. Insane amounts of money has been poured into YouTube. Sure, it gets revenue, but I bet it's not close enough to justify the expenditure, and there's no clear path either.
kyrra 9y ago
Is there any place that has said how much Youtube lost due to operational costs?
sjg007 9y ago
I think snapchat should have a longer format video interface inside it and then maybe after that is successful pivot it to a apple tv app / separate app / website.. Amazon can open up twitch into a more direct youtube competitor.. Apple could buy vimeo and do something similar, and/or build out their own HQ video sharing site.

Eridrus 9y ago

Losing money to get to scale isn't anti-competitive, it's basically how any business with economies of scale gets started.

ktta 9y ago
It absolutely is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
- uhhhhhhh 9y ago
  Or maybe not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader Loose money to attract users/creators who put more money into the system. I don't see how this would qualify as dumping in any way.
  - ktta 9y ago
    I don't think loss leader is the correct term either. YouTube doesn't make money, nor intends to make money in the near future[1]. The key here is to get entrenched in the market, then assert their monopoly. On surface this might seem okay, but it definitely is anti-competitive. We've just gotten used to it. Dumping isn't the proper term, but was the closest I could find. It comes under predatory pricing, but the problem is, this business practice is so different from what the current literature consists of, I don't think there even is a proper term. [1]: http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojcicki/ http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojc...
    - mulmen 9y ago
      Uh, isn't that just abusing their monopoly position? It's not a problem that YouTube grows, it's a problem when they abuse their monopoly position. This is why we (United States of America) have antitrust laws.
    - saalweachter 9y ago
      From your link: "That doesn’t necessarily mean YouTube isn’t profitable, but it just means it’s not a focus at the moment. YouTube, which primarily makes money from advertising within its videos, doesn’t release revenue numbers (it is not separated in financial statements by parent company Alphabet). But some reports put revenue in the billions."
      - ktta 9y ago
        That sounds like corporate talk. It's been 11 years since YouTube has been acquired by Google. Insane amounts of money has been poured into YouTube. Sure, it gets revenue, but I bet it's not close enough to justify the expenditure, and there's no clear path either.

kyrra 9y ago

Is there any place that has said how much Youtube lost due to operational costs?

sjg007 9y ago

I think snapchat should have a longer format video interface inside it and then maybe after that is successful pivot it to a apple tv app / separate app / website.. Amazon can open up twitch into a more direct youtube competitor.. Apple could buy vimeo and do something similar, and/or build out their own HQ video sharing site.