> When people ask, "Why hasn't someone disrupted YouTube?" I think the more boring answer that keeps getting overlooked is that it still meets the expectations

> When people ask, "Why hasn't someone disrupted YouTube?" I think the more boring answer that keeps getting overlooked is that it still meets the expectations of enough users, and the dissatisfied constitute a small percentage. I've seen a couple of attempts come and go. The ones that wrote a post-mortem after closing often emphasised how many resources—human, software, and hardware—video hosting websites consume. Not even because of the storage or the reencoding, but the sheer amount of bandwidth one needs to run such things globally. And it won't get profitable until a few years later, if ever. The goog is simply one of the few companies that can actually afford doing that. I personally have been glad that alternatives like Nebula[1] are popping up still. Even if their model is different. [1]: https://watchnebula.com/ https://watchnebula.com/