5 ms·

It would be costly, but I am confident that Google has the money. They just don't want to spend it, and I am not sympathetic to that.

alecbz 5y ago
The question is would it be so costly that YouTube's profitability would look significantly different, and at that point would Google want to keep running YouTube? I'm not sure, but I don't think the answer is that it obviously won't materially change YouTube's profitability.
- philipov 5y ago
  Youtube's value isn't as a profit center, but a way of keeping people inside Google's ad ecosystem. Its value is to dominate the video hosting market so that viable competitors can't rise up in its place. If Google can squeeze profit out, that's icing on the cake, but not the core reason why Google wants to hold on to Youtube. If the profitability of Youtube is on the table, then so should be antitrust, and Google should not be allowed to own it.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > Youtube's value isn't as a profit center, but a way of keeping people inside Google's ad ecosystem. Even more important from Google's point of view is it was the way to push Chrome to dominance. And a way to keep it there ahead of any potential competitors. Which is valuable because of the data and ability to block ad blockers. That is, Google's ad ecosystem.
    - alecbz 5y ago
      > it was the way to push Chrome to dominance. How did YT push Chrome?
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        In 2009/2010 YouTube advertised Chrome as a better way to view YouTube videos pretty extensively. YouTube also is a moving target that other browsers have to hit (see also GoogleDocs.) It's similar to how "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run", only with YouTube and other browsers.
      - anamax 5y ago
        Microsoft abandoned their "not Chrome-based" Edge code base, despite the fact that it was significantly faster than Chrome on almost every other site, because of the way that YouTube does some layers. This "way" has no functional effect, but it does block certain optimizations, optimizations that Edge was using and Chrome still isn't. Google optimizes YT for Chromium-based renderers. Or rather, Google pessimizes YT for other renderers.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Well, it's better if they don't keep it running them. They have a monopoly on search, that they use to censor any competing video hosting. If they go and start censoring their own service too, this is a very serious problem.
simonh 5y ago
Youtube gets roughly 30,000 hours of content uploaded to it every hour. They'd need an army the size of all of Google, Apple and Facebook put together just to review it all.
- philipov 5y ago
  If you want to be so successful as to become one of the premier public forums in society, don't start crying when you're held up to the standards and expectations of other public institutions. Google, go get ye that army of moderators.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Employing that many people would likely cost in the region of Google's entire earnings. It would make Youtube, or any service like it, financially impossible for anyone to run. So sure, I'm not saying we need Youtube, but what you're saying is we can't have it or anything like it.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      I really appreciate YouTube's existence, but chances are a communal video streaming site that the entire world can trivially upload videos to should probably be a government run service if it exists at all. There are a plethora of much more conservatively sized video uploading sites that vet and have specific contracts with their content producers.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      > Employing that many people would likely cost in the region of Google's entire earnings. It would cost 2.5% of their profits if they had an entire US workforce and every video needed to be viewed in its entirety.
- mopsi 5y ago
  How much of that remains if you don't review immediately, but when view count exceeds -- for example -- 100 views? I'd expect a dramatic drop from 30 000 hours.

alecbz 5y ago

The question is would it be so costly that YouTube's profitability would look significantly different, and at that point would Google want to keep running YouTube? I'm not sure, but I don't think the answer is that it obviously won't materially change YouTube's profitability.

philipov 5y ago
Youtube's value isn't as a profit center, but a way of keeping people inside Google's ad ecosystem. Its value is to dominate the video hosting market so that viable competitors can't rise up in its place. If Google can squeeze profit out, that's icing on the cake, but not the core reason why Google wants to hold on to Youtube. If the profitability of Youtube is on the table, then so should be antitrust, and Google should not be allowed to own it.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > Youtube's value isn't as a profit center, but a way of keeping people inside Google's ad ecosystem. Even more important from Google's point of view is it was the way to push Chrome to dominance. And a way to keep it there ahead of any potential competitors. Which is valuable because of the data and ability to block ad blockers. That is, Google's ad ecosystem.
  - alecbz 5y ago
    > it was the way to push Chrome to dominance. How did YT push Chrome?
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      In 2009/2010 YouTube advertised Chrome as a better way to view YouTube videos pretty extensively. YouTube also is a moving target that other browsers have to hit (see also GoogleDocs.) It's similar to how "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run", only with YouTube and other browsers.
    - anamax 5y ago
      Microsoft abandoned their "not Chrome-based" Edge code base, despite the fact that it was significantly faster than Chrome on almost every other site, because of the way that YouTube does some layers. This "way" has no functional effect, but it does block certain optimizations, optimizations that Edge was using and Chrome still isn't. Google optimizes YT for Chromium-based renderers. Or rather, Google pessimizes YT for other renderers.
marcosdumay 5y ago
Well, it's better if they don't keep it running them. They have a monopoly on search, that they use to censor any competing video hosting. If they go and start censoring their own service too, this is a very serious problem.

simonh 5y ago

Youtube gets roughly 30,000 hours of content uploaded to it every hour. They'd need an army the size of all of Google, Apple and Facebook put together just to review it all.

philipov 5y ago
If you want to be so successful as to become one of the premier public forums in society, don't start crying when you're held up to the standards and expectations of other public institutions. Google, go get ye that army of moderators.
- simonh 5y ago
  Employing that many people would likely cost in the region of Google's entire earnings. It would make Youtube, or any service like it, financially impossible for anyone to run. So sure, I'm not saying we need Youtube, but what you're saying is we can't have it or anything like it.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I really appreciate YouTube's existence, but chances are a communal video streaming site that the entire world can trivially upload videos to should probably be a government run service if it exists at all. There are a plethora of much more conservatively sized video uploading sites that vet and have specific contracts with their content producers.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > Employing that many people would likely cost in the region of Google's entire earnings. It would cost 2.5% of their profits if they had an entire US workforce and every video needed to be viewed in its entirety.
mopsi 5y ago
How much of that remains if you don't review immediately, but when view count exceeds -- for example -- 100 views? I'd expect a dramatic drop from 30 000 hours.