5 ms·

I don't understand why no other video platform has broken into YouTube's market share, after the last couple years' constant stream of PR disasters which mostly

by _bxg1 8y ago

I don't understand why no other video platform has broken into YouTube's market share, after the last couple years' constant stream of PR disasters which mostly have to do with the scale of the platform

rodorgas 8y ago
It’s so expensive that only Google can afford.
- zouhair 8y ago
  Pornhub is doing well.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    As I understand it MindGeek is pretty big but still only a small fraction the size of Youtube in terms of traffic. And they've yet to create a non-porn version of their site. I've heard rumors that they've at least considered it, but so far it hasn't happened.
pitaj 8y ago
It's expensive at least partially because publishers will sue the crap out of you if you don't invest heavily in content ID etc. It creates a huge barrier to entry, which is why copyright laws should be reformed to respect the idea of "common carrier" sites which don't discriminate on content.
- icebraining 8y ago
  (US) Copyright law does have that idea, the DMCA encodes it explicitly as the "safe harbor" provision.
rocqua 8y ago
Beyond the issues of infrastructure cost and litigious publishers as mentioned by others, there is also the user base. If users are on YT, that is where the content creators will be. And if the content creators are on YT, that is where the users are. Moreover, users have curated lists of subscriptions and creators have large lists of material. Finally, YT has access to a lot of data on viewing behavior, and likes. This means YT should be a lot better at recommending videos to users. Finally, the creators that most want to switch to an alternative are those who are the most censored. These tend to be more controversial, which means these alternative services gather controversial content. This tends to give these places a bad reputation which pushes away the non-controversial content. The best bet would probably to take a non-controversial niche, start there, and try and integrate well with YT to keep down switching costs. Its still hard to provide actual added value to such a niche. Alternatively one might take a controversial niche with wide acceptance. For example, gun channels or LGBTQ+ channels. Both are currently demonetized, but both are still widely accepted in broad swathes of society.
- chii 8y ago
  > YT should be a lot better at recommending videos to users. this is hardly the case, as any avid youtube watcher can tell you. Recently, the algorithmic suggestions are terrible, and either show repeated content, or content that's not even close to what's being watched (but the SEO/words in the description/title matches), or is a huge list of videos from the same channel.
ucaetano 8y ago
Because it ties in two barriers to entry that have rarely existed together before: minimum efficiency scale and network effects. Facebook only has network effects, there isn't anything particularly efficient or advanced about what it does. Given its minuscule infrastructure when compared to Google and Amazon, it would be very hard for it to achieve the same level of cost that Google has on YT. Pure search doesn't rely so much on scale as well. Any other provider doesn't have either the network effects that YT does nor the scale to be able to compete with Google on YT. From a scale perspective, the only companies who could effectively compete with Google would be Microsoft and Amazon. Microsoft is still trying to figure itself out, especially on the consumer side. Amazon is geographically limited and has very little expertise in open content and ad-funded platforms, but it is trying with Twitch.
langitbiru 8y ago
It's very hard to do and very very expensive. An Indonesian company tried to build a Youtube competitor: https://vidio.com https://vidio.com. I know many friends who work there. From their stories, we can assume that it takes a lot of smart people and a lot of money to build one.
dingo_bat 8y ago
Youtube video quality and speed is unparalleled. There are times on my phone when even jpgs on imgur take longer to load than 1080p video on youtube. I don't know how exactly they pull it off but I guess it's a combo of local caching and deals with ISPs and phone carriers. Smaller competitors have no chance to compete.

by _bxg1 8y ago

rodorgas 8y ago

It’s so expensive that only Google can afford.

zouhair 8y ago
Pornhub is doing well.
- JackCh 8y ago
  As I understand it MindGeek is pretty big but still only a small fraction the size of Youtube in terms of traffic. And they've yet to create a non-porn version of their site. I've heard rumors that they've at least considered it, but so far it hasn't happened.

pitaj 8y ago

It's expensive at least partially because publishers will sue the crap out of you if you don't invest heavily in content ID etc. It creates a huge barrier to entry, which is why copyright laws should be reformed to respect the idea of "common carrier" sites which don't discriminate on content.

icebraining 8y ago
(US) Copyright law does have that idea, the DMCA encodes it explicitly as the "safe harbor" provision.

rocqua 8y ago

Beyond the issues of infrastructure cost and litigious publishers as mentioned by others, there is also the user base. If users are on YT, that is where the content creators will be. And if the content creators are on YT, that is where the users are. Moreover, users have curated lists of subscriptions and creators have large lists of material. Finally, YT has access to a lot of data on viewing behavior, and likes. This means YT should be a lot better at recommending videos to users. Finally, the creators that most want to switch to an alternative are those who are the most censored. These tend to be more controversial, which means these alternative services gather controversial content. This tends to give these places a bad reputation which pushes away the non-controversial content. The best bet would probably to take a non-controversial niche, start there, and try and integrate well with YT to keep down switching costs. Its still hard to provide actual added value to such a niche. Alternatively one might take a controversial niche with wide acceptance. For example, gun channels or LGBTQ+ channels. Both are currently demonetized, but both are still widely accepted in broad swathes of society.

chii 8y ago
> YT should be a lot better at recommending videos to users. this is hardly the case, as any avid youtube watcher can tell you. Recently, the algorithmic suggestions are terrible, and either show repeated content, or content that's not even close to what's being watched (but the SEO/words in the description/title matches), or is a huge list of videos from the same channel.

ucaetano 8y ago

Because it ties in two barriers to entry that have rarely existed together before: minimum efficiency scale and network effects. Facebook only has network effects, there isn't anything particularly efficient or advanced about what it does. Given its minuscule infrastructure when compared to Google and Amazon, it would be very hard for it to achieve the same level of cost that Google has on YT. Pure search doesn't rely so much on scale as well. Any other provider doesn't have either the network effects that YT does nor the scale to be able to compete with Google on YT. From a scale perspective, the only companies who could effectively compete with Google would be Microsoft and Amazon. Microsoft is still trying to figure itself out, especially on the consumer side. Amazon is geographically limited and has very little expertise in open content and ad-funded platforms, but it is trying with Twitch.

langitbiru 8y ago

It's very hard to do and very very expensive. An Indonesian company tried to build a Youtube competitor: https://vidio.com https://vidio.com. I know many friends who work there. From their stories, we can assume that it takes a lot of smart people and a lot of money to build one.

dingo_bat 8y ago

Youtube video quality and speed is unparalleled. There are times on my phone when even jpgs on imgur take longer to load than 1080p video on youtube. I don't know how exactly they pull it off but I guess it's a combo of local caching and deals with ISPs and phone carriers. Smaller competitors have no chance to compete.