12 ms·

>So in that respect, it's kind of a shitty move by Google. 12 years of free video hosting with no ads and a platform for people to discover your videos is quit

>So in that respect, it's kind of a shitty move by Google. 12 years of free video hosting with no ads and a platform for people to discover your videos is quite the deal. They always had to add ads at some point, hosting video, and the bandwidth and transcoding that goes with it, is incredibly expensive, not to mention the dev time going into creating such a massive platform. If you thought you could eat a free lunch forever... Well, I guess this is your rude awakening. But you honestly should have expected it. The discovery feature of Youtube shouldn't be understated either. A large number of creators have most of their audiences because of Youtube. And honestly your example of Jim Sterling sounds like a smaller company would have gone out of their way to ban them. He's reaping all the benefits of the platform while giving nothing back.

moogly 6y ago
I don't really understand bringing up the "hosting video is so expensive; poor poor Youtube being exploited by nasty creators" angle. It's a symbiotic relationship. Without content creators, Youtube is nothing. Without Youtube's massive user base, content creators will reach no one. Meanwhile, Youtube is the one making money over fist (4-5 billion dollars per quarter), so I don't understand why we should feel sorry for their hosting costs.
- ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  >Without content creators Without content creators who refuse to allow ads in exchange for free hosting, is it nothing? Probably not, most creators do enjoy making money, and most of the ones putting out content for free, but without ads, will struggle to find a competitor who will indefinitely provide free hosting. >4-5 billion dollars per quarter In revenue, not profit. Very, very important distinction.
  - moogly 6y ago
    I mean... you take the good with the bad to get the breadth and depth in your platform. You make a shitload of money on PewDiePie and nothing on Mieleman (sorry; I forget the name of the German guy who posts videos of washing machine cycles), and balance the two. It's not difficult. ~~Okay then, 15 billion in profits last year. I'm no businessman but to me that's pretty damn good profits with those revenue numbers.~~ Edit: Alright, Google search failed me. Searching for profits gave me revenue. Sorry about that. Profits are still secret, it seems. But the hosting costs won't eat the lion's share of that, I can assure you.
    - ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
      ...again my friend, that is the revenue number. Searching Youtube revenue 2019 gives you exactly that number.
    - ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
      https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121370/youtube-advertising-revenue-creators-demonetization-earnings-google https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121370/youtube-advertisi... Well according to this $8.5 billion of that is given to creators. Leaving 6.5 billion for hosting costs, development, and all the management that goes with a platform of that size. About 2.8 billion hours were spent watching youtube in 2019.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
Lambdanaut 6y ago
> They always had to add ads at some point, hosting video, and the bandwidth and transcoding that goes with it, is incredibly expensive, not to mention the dev time going into creating such a massive platform. This isn't about covering expenses that they couldn't afford otherwise. This is about making enormously rich people even richer.
- bestnameever 6y ago
  Most businesses don’t give away products or services away for free on a mass scale despite being able to afford to do so.
  - BEEdwards 6y ago
    But they're not giving it away, they're harvesting massive amounts of information even off of videos without ads.
    - svachalek 6y ago
      What value does that information have, other than to sell ads?
- ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  >This isn't about covering expenses that they couldn't afford otherwise. This is about making enormously rich people even richer. So you truly believe people should be entitled to free video hosting? It literally costs money to host content. If you make the platform no money, Youtube has no obligation to keep you around. Just because I pay for my groceries doesn't mean you get yours for free. Just because one person is paying doesn't mean an equal numbers of others don't have to.
  - Lambdanaut 6y ago
    I simply stated that this isn't about covering necessary expenses that wouldn't have been able to be covered otherwise, which is how you initially framed it.
rektide 6y ago
> If you thought you could eat a free lunch forever... Well, I guess this is your rude awakening. But you honestly should have expected it. just sucks & is such a Lucy pulling out the football move, that YouTube helps everyone & especially the very small folk, rises to meteoric heights/total monolopy, then won't let some small fry newcomers enjoy either an unbelievably modest revenue or give away an ad-free experience to their new watchers. > The discovery feature of Youtube shouldn't be understated either. 100% a video monopoly. youtube has us, has us all.

moogly 6y ago

I don't really understand bringing up the "hosting video is so expensive; poor poor Youtube being exploited by nasty creators" angle. It's a symbiotic relationship. Without content creators, Youtube is nothing. Without Youtube's massive user base, content creators will reach no one. Meanwhile, Youtube is the one making money over fist (4-5 billion dollars per quarter), so I don't understand why we should feel sorry for their hosting costs.

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
>Without content creators Without content creators who refuse to allow ads in exchange for free hosting, is it nothing? Probably not, most creators do enjoy making money, and most of the ones putting out content for free, but without ads, will struggle to find a competitor who will indefinitely provide free hosting. >4-5 billion dollars per quarter In revenue, not profit. Very, very important distinction.
- moogly 6y ago
  I mean... you take the good with the bad to get the breadth and depth in your platform. You make a shitload of money on PewDiePie and nothing on Mieleman (sorry; I forget the name of the German guy who posts videos of washing machine cycles), and balance the two. It's not difficult. ~~Okay then, 15 billion in profits last year. I'm no businessman but to me that's pretty damn good profits with those revenue numbers.~~ Edit: Alright, Google search failed me. Searching for profits gave me revenue. Sorry about that. Profits are still secret, it seems. But the hosting costs won't eat the lion's share of that, I can assure you.
  - ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
    ...again my friend, that is the revenue number. Searching Youtube revenue 2019 gives you exactly that number.
  - ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
    https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121370/youtube-advertising-revenue-creators-demonetization-earnings-google https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121370/youtube-advertisi... Well according to this $8.5 billion of that is given to creators. Leaving 6.5 billion for hosting costs, development, and all the management that goes with a platform of that size. About 2.8 billion hours were spent watching youtube in 2019.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

Lambdanaut 6y ago

> They always had to add ads at some point, hosting video, and the bandwidth and transcoding that goes with it, is incredibly expensive, not to mention the dev time going into creating such a massive platform. This isn't about covering expenses that they couldn't afford otherwise. This is about making enormously rich people even richer.

bestnameever 6y ago
Most businesses don’t give away products or services away for free on a mass scale despite being able to afford to do so.
- BEEdwards 6y ago
  But they're not giving it away, they're harvesting massive amounts of information even off of videos without ads.
  - svachalek 6y ago
    What value does that information have, other than to sell ads?
ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
>This isn't about covering expenses that they couldn't afford otherwise. This is about making enormously rich people even richer. So you truly believe people should be entitled to free video hosting? It literally costs money to host content. If you make the platform no money, Youtube has no obligation to keep you around. Just because I pay for my groceries doesn't mean you get yours for free. Just because one person is paying doesn't mean an equal numbers of others don't have to.
- Lambdanaut 6y ago
  I simply stated that this isn't about covering necessary expenses that wouldn't have been able to be covered otherwise, which is how you initially framed it.

rektide 6y ago

> If you thought you could eat a free lunch forever... Well, I guess this is your rude awakening. But you honestly should have expected it. just sucks & is such a Lucy pulling out the football move, that YouTube helps everyone & especially the very small folk, rises to meteoric heights/total monolopy, then won't let some small fry newcomers enjoy either an unbelievably modest revenue or give away an ad-free experience to their new watchers. > The discovery feature of Youtube shouldn't be understated either. 100% a video monopoly. youtube has us, has us all.