4 ms·

you offer a largely technical[0] answer to a business (and a politicoeconomic) problem. this is a common perspective bias of tech-focused folks of all stripes,

you offer a largely technical[0] answer to a business (and a politicoeconomic) problem. this is a common perspective bias of tech-focused folks of all stripes, and leads to incorrect, or at least incomplete, solutions to the problems faced by businesses. some of those technical aspects support youtube's strategy of dominating the online video provider market, but none of them are (even collectively) the reason why youtube dominates. for instance, vimeo has all of those to some degree and doesn't dominate the market. youtube's strategy (e.g., 'the reason') was to leverage google's resources to undermine the revenue-making opportunities of the whole market so that it could outlast them to domination. it used google's (monopolistic) advantages in search and online advertising, as well as its capital warchest, to effect this strategy. that warchest, for instance, allowed it to offer free hosting/streaming, something that was difficult for smaller players to do. google's dominance in search allowed it to offer premium advertising to youtube videos. google's dominance in online advertising (again, monopolistically) gave youtube an advantage in monetization and targeting. in short, this wasn't a story of a scrappy competitor overcoming the odds to become the market leader. it was hoarded capital and monopoly advantage being deployed to corner another market. that is, it was an (unprosecuted) anti-trust violation. [0]: note the broader connotation of 'technical', not limited to just technology

sushid 5y ago
No one is asking how Youtube got there. The question is, how can you complete with it and I believe the above commenter gave a very reasonable answer. Your side point about it supposedly being an anti-trust violation isn't even a proper answer to the question.
- clairity 5y ago
  the parent comment was a list of technical attributes about how youtube got there (used as rationale for why it's impossible to compete). i countered that that's not how it got there, as it's emphasizing tactics, not strategy. it's hard to formulate a coherent competitive strategy if you entirely misunderstand your competitor's successful (if anti-competitive) strategy. it's like playing chess by focusing on taking all the pawns rather than the king.
  - ageitgey 5y ago
    I think you misinterpreted my original post. My post was a list of some of the capital intensive challenges a competitor would have to solve now to operate a similar business to YouTube as it exists now (many of which aren't even technical, like growing an ad market and getting creators on board). The point was that unless you already have a money printing business in another area that you can use to chase this for years without budgetary constraints, it would be very difficult to build something of a similar scale. I think you are arguing a point that my post largely already agrees with.
    - clairity 5y ago
      agreed, but your takeoff point was the technical/tactical, whereas i'm advising a wider perspective, as that perspective easily and commonly leads to mistaken conclusions in isolation (particularly by technologists in this context). to be clear, i tend to agree with the individual points made, but even together, they don't articulate youtube's strategy. that was the missing, and the most relevant, element, even if you allude to it otherwise.
    - posix86 5y ago
      You're explaining what youtube's edge is in the market, but not why nobody else has it; it's an important distinction. Any company has an edge on any non existent company, because they exist - they have the tools, the infrastructure, the knowledge needed to run the business, all things that the non existent company first has to aquire. Doesn't explain why nobody else can do it! Because things, in general, can be aquired. But clarity did: Youtube has Google. Youtube was able to aquire things nobody else could. Example: You said youtube needs near unlimited bandwidth. This argument doesn't show me why there can't be a competitor. Youtube's business model seems to pay off, so you should be able to convince an investor to pay you, too, unlimited bandwidth, right? Money is immaterial if you can show that you can make more of it at a later stage.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    The strategy you describe is functionally "provide features that competitors cannot". You ascribe nefarious means to all of those features, but that isn' the only (or in many cases even the likeliest) motivation for providing those features.
- SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
  The original question was not asking how you can compete with YouTube. It asked why YouTube doesn't have competition.

sushid 5y ago

No one is asking how Youtube got there. The question is, how can you complete with it and I believe the above commenter gave a very reasonable answer. Your side point about it supposedly being an anti-trust violation isn't even a proper answer to the question.

clairity 5y ago
the parent comment was a list of technical attributes about how youtube got there (used as rationale for why it's impossible to compete). i countered that that's not how it got there, as it's emphasizing tactics, not strategy. it's hard to formulate a coherent competitive strategy if you entirely misunderstand your competitor's successful (if anti-competitive) strategy. it's like playing chess by focusing on taking all the pawns rather than the king.
- ageitgey 5y ago
  I think you misinterpreted my original post. My post was a list of some of the capital intensive challenges a competitor would have to solve now to operate a similar business to YouTube as it exists now (many of which aren't even technical, like growing an ad market and getting creators on board). The point was that unless you already have a money printing business in another area that you can use to chase this for years without budgetary constraints, it would be very difficult to build something of a similar scale. I think you are arguing a point that my post largely already agrees with.
  - clairity 5y ago
    agreed, but your takeoff point was the technical/tactical, whereas i'm advising a wider perspective, as that perspective easily and commonly leads to mistaken conclusions in isolation (particularly by technologists in this context). to be clear, i tend to agree with the individual points made, but even together, they don't articulate youtube's strategy. that was the missing, and the most relevant, element, even if you allude to it otherwise.
  - posix86 5y ago
    You're explaining what youtube's edge is in the market, but not why nobody else has it; it's an important distinction. Any company has an edge on any non existent company, because they exist - they have the tools, the infrastructure, the knowledge needed to run the business, all things that the non existent company first has to aquire. Doesn't explain why nobody else can do it! Because things, in general, can be aquired. But clarity did: Youtube has Google. Youtube was able to aquire things nobody else could. Example: You said youtube needs near unlimited bandwidth. This argument doesn't show me why there can't be a competitor. Youtube's business model seems to pay off, so you should be able to convince an investor to pay you, too, unlimited bandwidth, right? Money is immaterial if you can show that you can make more of it at a later stage.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  The strategy you describe is functionally "provide features that competitors cannot". You ascribe nefarious means to all of those features, but that isn' the only (or in many cases even the likeliest) motivation for providing those features.
SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
The original question was not asking how you can compete with YouTube. It asked why YouTube doesn't have competition.