3 ms·

I think maybe this was true five years ago, but at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising. I don’t follow their financials bu

I think maybe this was true five years ago, but at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising. I don’t follow their financials but I assume the site was self sufficient with far fewer ads than today, and that now they are extracting profit (rents) from their established behemoth. Of course I could be wrong.

donkeyd 5y ago
> now they are extracting profit So? They're a business, what do you expect? The previous commenter was saying they're doing more than just hosting video, which is true. If you want to create a nonprofit for video hosting, go ahead, but don't blame YouTube for turning a profit.
- Mindwipe 5y ago
  Also don't be surprised that your not for profit folds very quickly. YouTube got to be YouTube because Google sank enormous amounts of money into it for no return for a decade. Indeed, YouTube probably still hasn't broken even if including those costs.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Everyone replying in this manner is missing that I am discussing whether or not they are rent seeking. No one is questioning whether they are or should be making a profit. The person I replied to said they are not rent seeking, they are just seeking profit to fund operations. I claim they are rent seeking, which is according to wikipedia: "the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." No one is questioning that they are or should be making a profit, only the purpose and result of their profit seeking.
madeofpalk 5y ago
Of course they're trying to make a profit. Youtube, Google, nor Alphabet are a charity. "Profit is inherently evil" is a difficult point of view to have on this venture captial forum.
- CuriouslyC 5y ago
  I think advertising is evil is the sentiment, and that's not out of place in a forum that has a focus on building a better future, rather than making money any way possible.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  This thread has been a fascinating exercise in reading comprehension. I was replying to the statement "Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube." Rent seeking is a form of making profit. So of course they are making a profit. The question is whether they are making a profit in order to fund their operations as was suggested by the person I was replying to, or if they are "rent seeking". According to wikipedia "Rent-seeking is the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." That is why I said they "at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising". The claim I am making is a direct reply to the person who said they are not rent seeking, they are merely seeking profit to fund their operations. I am making the claim that they have moved beyond that to seeking profit without creating additional value in their service. Now one can argue whether or not I am correct, but what was never under question was whether or not they are making a profit. The only thing being questioned was the purpose and result of that profit seeking.
paulcole 5y ago
You know you can pay YouTube like $10 a month and never see an ad again, right?
- falcolas 5y ago
  Your views are also worth more to the creators. That isn’t to say there are not other issues with creators and wringing money from the Google branded stone.
- grozzle 5y ago
  I can also pay YouTube $0 a month and never see an ad again. I do pay money for Nebula, because they seem like their hearts are in the right place. I pay about $60, 70 a month to various podcast and video creators directly. I don't use adblock, vanced, and sponsorblock because I'm cheap. It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an unobtrusive platform. I whitelist Alec at Technology Connections, Steve Mould, a couple of others, from the ad blocks, because they aren't on Nebula yet. They should be.
  - jacobjjacob 5y ago
    If you really don’t like the product, the right thing to do would be to stop using it, not steal it. If the cost of a product exceeds its value to you, you just don’t buy it. It doesn’t mean you should get it for free.
    - feanaro 5y ago
      Selectively blocking parts of a web page is not stealing.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    > It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an unobtrusive platform. If you really didn't like that, you'd stop watching YouTube.
- 5y ago

donkeyd 5y ago

> now they are extracting profit So? They're a business, what do you expect? The previous commenter was saying they're doing more than just hosting video, which is true. If you want to create a nonprofit for video hosting, go ahead, but don't blame YouTube for turning a profit.

Mindwipe 5y ago
Also don't be surprised that your not for profit folds very quickly. YouTube got to be YouTube because Google sank enormous amounts of money into it for no return for a decade. Indeed, YouTube probably still hasn't broken even if including those costs.
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Everyone replying in this manner is missing that I am discussing whether or not they are rent seeking. No one is questioning whether they are or should be making a profit. The person I replied to said they are not rent seeking, they are just seeking profit to fund operations. I claim they are rent seeking, which is according to wikipedia: "the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." No one is questioning that they are or should be making a profit, only the purpose and result of their profit seeking.

madeofpalk 5y ago

Of course they're trying to make a profit. Youtube, Google, nor Alphabet are a charity. "Profit is inherently evil" is a difficult point of view to have on this venture captial forum.

CuriouslyC 5y ago
I think advertising is evil is the sentiment, and that's not out of place in a forum that has a focus on building a better future, rather than making money any way possible.
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
This thread has been a fascinating exercise in reading comprehension. I was replying to the statement "Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube." Rent seeking is a form of making profit. So of course they are making a profit. The question is whether they are making a profit in order to fund their operations as was suggested by the person I was replying to, or if they are "rent seeking". According to wikipedia "Rent-seeking is the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." That is why I said they "at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising". The claim I am making is a direct reply to the person who said they are not rent seeking, they are merely seeking profit to fund their operations. I am making the claim that they have moved beyond that to seeking profit without creating additional value in their service. Now one can argue whether or not I am correct, but what was never under question was whether or not they are making a profit. The only thing being questioned was the purpose and result of that profit seeking.

paulcole 5y ago

You know you can pay YouTube like $10 a month and never see an ad again, right?

falcolas 5y ago
Your views are also worth more to the creators. That isn’t to say there are not other issues with creators and wringing money from the Google branded stone.
grozzle 5y ago
I can also pay YouTube $0 a month and never see an ad again. I do pay money for Nebula, because they seem like their hearts are in the right place. I pay about $60, 70 a month to various podcast and video creators directly. I don't use adblock, vanced, and sponsorblock because I'm cheap. It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an unobtrusive platform. I whitelist Alec at Technology Connections, Steve Mould, a couple of others, from the ad blocks, because they aren't on Nebula yet. They should be.
- jacobjjacob 5y ago
  If you really don’t like the product, the right thing to do would be to stop using it, not steal it. If the cost of a product exceeds its value to you, you just don’t buy it. It doesn’t mean you should get it for free.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    Selectively blocking parts of a web page is not stealing.
- paulcole 5y ago
  > It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an unobtrusive platform. If you really didn't like that, you'd stop watching YouTube.
5y ago