4 ms·

Even moderately successful YouTubers rely on sponsorship and because there's competition for creators between platforms it would take illegal coordination to pr

Even moderately successful YouTubers rely on sponsorship and because there's competition for creators between platforms it would take illegal coordination to present a united front and ban it

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Right... Like how Google and Apple and Steam and Microsoft and Playstation compete on transaction fees for their stores? If the platforms wanted to come after the money, they could. I suspect they're still in the growing phase. But I imagine in the near future, they'll start demanding all ads go through their platforms.
- not2b 5y ago
  Only if they aren't worried about antitrust enforcement against their advertising monopolies. Probably safer for them to let it go.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  Ignoring the ongoing court cases around that it's very different when you have huge barriers to entry and thus only a few companies especially when they just have to follow the existing norms vs imposing a new norm. Like starting up a video sharing site is hard, but we've seen a number of examples over the past 5 years who have gained traction where we've seen no examples of new successful app stores in that time
slapfrog 5y ago
> Even moderately successful YouTubers rely on sponsorship and because there's competition for creators between platforms The fact that you call them "Youtubers", identifying them using the trademark of one particular platform rather than a generic descriptor like "video content creator", suggests that there is not quite as much healthy competition as you claim. Most video companies other than youtube only compete with youtube in a narrow sense; a great deal of the content on youtube does not fit on tiktok's platform, which is only good for short-form content. Netflix only hosts movies or TV shows. Twitch is for livestreaming; other kinds of content don't fit into the paradigm of twitch. Vimeo has never been a good place for off-the-cuff home movies, they too try to compete with youtube only in a narrow domain, not across the board. The few generalist video hosting companies other than youtube are all jokes that are faaar behind youtube in viewer counts.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  I guess the point is that Youtube has a powerful market position but not an unassailable one. They can lose market share and pissing off a large percent of there content creators seems like a good way of doing that

Even moderately successful YouTubers rely on sponsorship and because there's competition for creators between platforms it would take illegal coordination to present a united front and ban it

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

Right... Like how Google and Apple and Steam and Microsoft and Playstation compete on transaction fees for their stores? If the platforms wanted to come after the money, they could. I suspect they're still in the growing phase. But I imagine in the near future, they'll start demanding all ads go through their platforms.

not2b 5y ago
Only if they aren't worried about antitrust enforcement against their advertising monopolies. Probably safer for them to let it go.
space_fountain 5y ago
Ignoring the ongoing court cases around that it's very different when you have huge barriers to entry and thus only a few companies especially when they just have to follow the existing norms vs imposing a new norm. Like starting up a video sharing site is hard, but we've seen a number of examples over the past 5 years who have gained traction where we've seen no examples of new successful app stores in that time

slapfrog 5y ago

> Even moderately successful YouTubers rely on sponsorship and because there's competition for creators between platforms The fact that you call them "Youtubers", identifying them using the trademark of one particular platform rather than a generic descriptor like "video content creator", suggests that there is not quite as much healthy competition as you claim. Most video companies other than youtube only compete with youtube in a narrow sense; a great deal of the content on youtube does not fit on tiktok's platform, which is only good for short-form content. Netflix only hosts movies or TV shows. Twitch is for livestreaming; other kinds of content don't fit into the paradigm of twitch. Vimeo has never been a good place for off-the-cuff home movies, they too try to compete with youtube only in a narrow domain, not across the board. The few generalist video hosting companies other than youtube are all jokes that are faaar behind youtube in viewer counts.

space_fountain 5y ago
I guess the point is that Youtube has a powerful market position but not an unassailable one. They can lose market share and pissing off a large percent of there content creators seems like a good way of doing that