3 ms·

I agree - There is no way that Youtube could compete without access to google resources. If they had to pay for their own bandwidth, hosting, transcoding, etc w

I agree - There is no way that Youtube could compete without access to google resources. If they had to pay for their own bandwidth, hosting, transcoding, etc while surviving off adsense revenue (paying same google "commission" as everyone else), they would quickly drive themselves into bancruptcy simply due to their popularity! They are stifling competition because they have unlimited funds to throw at anything they want. They should definitely be split up.

silasdavis 6y ago
Would users get a better service from the successors of YouTube? Would we have to watch more ads?
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Impossible to know for sure, since any better service is going to get suffocated by Google's market power unless it's backed by another huge player like Amazon.
- SenHeng 6y ago
  There's a freemium video service in japan called Nico Video [0] that has been around for about the same length of time as Youtube. On the free tier, you're essentially limited to a really shitty video quality, somewhere around 480p. It also has ads and some kind of rate limiting. Besides subscriptions, they also do tie-ups and other PR related stuff. Video quality has never really been that good even on the premium tier. Their whole selling point seems to be community interaction, where by viewers can post comments directly into the video stream [1]. As far as I can tell, they've been bleeding money for the last decade though they seemed to have turned a profit this year. My conclusion is that no, users would not get a better service. [0]: https://www.nicovideo.jp https://www.nicovideo.jp [1]: http://blog.nicovideo.jp/en_info/2013/01/post-037484.html http://blog.nicovideo.jp/en_info/2013/01/post-037484.html [2]: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ニコニコ動画#ビジネス https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ニコニコ動画#ビジネス
t_sawyer 6y ago
YouTube existed without Google. Google bought them.
- supermatt 6y ago
  And it wasn't profitable then, either.

silasdavis 6y ago

Would users get a better service from the successors of YouTube? Would we have to watch more ads?

kevingadd 6y ago
Impossible to know for sure, since any better service is going to get suffocated by Google's market power unless it's backed by another huge player like Amazon.
SenHeng 6y ago
There's a freemium video service in japan called Nico Video [0] that has been around for about the same length of time as Youtube. On the free tier, you're essentially limited to a really shitty video quality, somewhere around 480p. It also has ads and some kind of rate limiting. Besides subscriptions, they also do tie-ups and other PR related stuff. Video quality has never really been that good even on the premium tier. Their whole selling point seems to be community interaction, where by viewers can post comments directly into the video stream [1]. As far as I can tell, they've been bleeding money for the last decade though they seemed to have turned a profit this year. My conclusion is that no, users would not get a better service. [0]: https://www.nicovideo.jp https://www.nicovideo.jp [1]: http://blog.nicovideo.jp/en_info/2013/01/post-037484.html http://blog.nicovideo.jp/en_info/2013/01/post-037484.html [2]: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ニコニコ動画#ビジネス https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ニコニコ動画#ビジネス

t_sawyer 6y ago

YouTube existed without Google. Google bought them.

supermatt 6y ago
And it wasn't profitable then, either.