3 ms·

YouTube doesn't really fit the definition of a natural monopoly, particularly because there's nothing fundamentally stopping other services from popping up. Yo

YouTube doesn't really fit the definition of a natural monopoly, particularly because there's nothing fundamentally stopping other services from popping up. YouTube's status as an effective monopoly doesn't come from some sort of scarcity of the means of production. > The cost to a competitor is in getting a user to switch. Only if we're assuming that users and uploaders will only ever use exactly one service at any given time. No reason why that needs to be the case; nothing stopping people from uploading to YouTube and Vimeo and Twitch and DailyMotion and PornHub and LBRY and PeerTube and whatever other platforms, and nothing stopping people from viewing from those platforms, either.

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Then where is the YouTube competitor? The closest seems to be odysee (https://odysee.com/ https://odysee.com/) where you're lucky to break a few hundred views. Suppose YouTube disappeared tomorrow. Where would everyone go? Probably odysee. So why don't they go there now? That's why Youtube is a natural monopoly.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 6y ago
  I think it's Facebook and Instagram. You can put a video up there and a lot of people will watch it.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > Then where is the YouTube competitor? I named multiple said competitors. And they seem to get plenty of traffic themselves. > So why don't they go there now? Do people know about odysee? First I've heard of it (to my recollection at least).
visarga 6y ago
> YouTube's status as an effective monopoly doesn't come from some sort of scarcity of the means of production. The problem here is in the network effect, not in scarcity.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  Hence my belief that it ain't a natural monopoly.
  - visarga 6y ago
    It's the tendency of these markets to "naturally" form monopolies.
ivanhoe 6y ago
Thing is that the free market approach just doesn't work in markets where there's only a few players and the cost of entering the market is extremely high. Simply there's no enough competition to make things actually competitive. That's why google provides no support and shuts down peoples accounts without warnings... they can, they just don't give a shit. They know they will not loose any clients over that, and in the end that attitude detriments the quality of services for both viewers and content producers (and especially them).
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > and the cost of entering the market is extremely high. The cost to enter the video sharing market is extremely low, especially in this day and age where you can rent computing and storage capacity on the cheap around the world.

sillysaurusx 6y ago

Then where is the YouTube competitor? The closest seems to be odysee (https://odysee.com/ https://odysee.com/) where you're lucky to break a few hundred views. Suppose YouTube disappeared tomorrow. Where would everyone go? Probably odysee. So why don't they go there now? That's why Youtube is a natural monopoly.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 6y ago
I think it's Facebook and Instagram. You can put a video up there and a lot of people will watch it.
yellowapple 6y ago
> Then where is the YouTube competitor? I named multiple said competitors. And they seem to get plenty of traffic themselves. > So why don't they go there now? Do people know about odysee? First I've heard of it (to my recollection at least).

visarga 6y ago

> YouTube's status as an effective monopoly doesn't come from some sort of scarcity of the means of production. The problem here is in the network effect, not in scarcity.

yellowapple 6y ago
Hence my belief that it ain't a natural monopoly.
- visarga 6y ago
  It's the tendency of these markets to "naturally" form monopolies.

ivanhoe 6y ago

Thing is that the free market approach just doesn't work in markets where there's only a few players and the cost of entering the market is extremely high. Simply there's no enough competition to make things actually competitive. That's why google provides no support and shuts down peoples accounts without warnings... they can, they just don't give a shit. They know they will not loose any clients over that, and in the end that attitude detriments the quality of services for both viewers and content producers (and especially them).

yellowapple 6y ago
> and the cost of entering the market is extremely high. The cost to enter the video sharing market is extremely low, especially in this day and age where you can rent computing and storage capacity on the cheap around the world.