5 ms·

Twitter really needs to move into the longer form video space to give YouTube some competition. YouTube has gotten very lazy with their near monopoly on long f

Twitter really needs to move into the longer form video space to give YouTube some competition. YouTube has gotten very lazy with their near monopoly on long form video and now only innovates by increasing the number of ads every quarter to show revenue growth and desperately copying TikTok.

GregWWalters 4y ago
I'd welcome competition. Vimeo is the closest thing I can think of and it differentiated itself. But I don't think Twitter is the right one to do it. IMO, these services are best when they're narrowly focused. YouTube branching into shorts, Facebook and Instagram branching into... well, everything... has made those services cluttered, and makes their once core features worse.
atty 4y ago
I don’t see how Twitter could afford to compete with YouTube financially. YouTube has the larger audience (3x MAU) so they get the best advertising deals, and they STILL don’t break out YouTube’s profit/loss individually, suggesting it’s probably either low margin or a loss leader for alphabet.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Reads like an argument for breaking up Google, so they can't dominate and suppress markets by funding unprofitable units indefinitely.
  - gfaster 4y ago
    I absolutely understand that argument, but this seems like one of the few cases where this tremendous consolidation provides a net public benefit. Despite its flaws, YouTube is still an excellent platform and resource, and it seems that video streaming is still impossible to do well without Google-level resources. I honestly think there isn't a good solution here. If Google didn't prop up YouTube, we would lose the utility of free* video streaming and hosting. Other than Google, it seems like the only organizations in the world with the resources to maintain YouTube would be far worse (i.e. governments). This isn't to say Google shouldn't be broken up, but YouTube's existence is perhaps the best argument against it.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      We don't know what options we're missing out on because there's a monopoly dominating the market. Relevantly to this discussion, it's certainly created a situation where creators don't have anywhere to go if Youtube is abusing them. It may also be suppressing their compensation, for the ones who do it for money. Free-to-the-user services like this even discourage open-source development of competing applications, adoption rates and development-interest in related open protocols, and nonprofit services.
      - Mindwipe 4y ago
        Open source doesn't pay bandwidth bills. I would also break YouTube up, but that's because I think the death of free video streaming wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
kevingadd 4y ago
To truly compete with YouTube, Twitter would need a video discovery algorithm at least on the same level. Multiple large-following (1m+ subs) YouTubers have said that as much as they have grievances with YT, other platforms like Twitch and Twitter don't have the kind of discovery tools they would need to grow an audience there and make money. (Twitter would also need really robust advertising infrastructure for this, IMO)

GregWWalters 4y ago

I'd welcome competition. Vimeo is the closest thing I can think of and it differentiated itself. But I don't think Twitter is the right one to do it. IMO, these services are best when they're narrowly focused. YouTube branching into shorts, Facebook and Instagram branching into... well, everything... has made those services cluttered, and makes their once core features worse.

atty 4y ago

I don’t see how Twitter could afford to compete with YouTube financially. YouTube has the larger audience (3x MAU) so they get the best advertising deals, and they STILL don’t break out YouTube’s profit/loss individually, suggesting it’s probably either low margin or a loss leader for alphabet.

yamtaddle 4y ago
Reads like an argument for breaking up Google, so they can't dominate and suppress markets by funding unprofitable units indefinitely.
- gfaster 4y ago
  I absolutely understand that argument, but this seems like one of the few cases where this tremendous consolidation provides a net public benefit. Despite its flaws, YouTube is still an excellent platform and resource, and it seems that video streaming is still impossible to do well without Google-level resources. I honestly think there isn't a good solution here. If Google didn't prop up YouTube, we would lose the utility of free* video streaming and hosting. Other than Google, it seems like the only organizations in the world with the resources to maintain YouTube would be far worse (i.e. governments). This isn't to say Google shouldn't be broken up, but YouTube's existence is perhaps the best argument against it.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    We don't know what options we're missing out on because there's a monopoly dominating the market. Relevantly to this discussion, it's certainly created a situation where creators don't have anywhere to go if Youtube is abusing them. It may also be suppressing their compensation, for the ones who do it for money. Free-to-the-user services like this even discourage open-source development of competing applications, adoption rates and development-interest in related open protocols, and nonprofit services.
    - Mindwipe 4y ago
      Open source doesn't pay bandwidth bills. I would also break YouTube up, but that's because I think the death of free video streaming wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

kevingadd 4y ago

To truly compete with YouTube, Twitter would need a video discovery algorithm at least on the same level. Multiple large-following (1m+ subs) YouTubers have said that as much as they have grievances with YT, other platforms like Twitch and Twitter don't have the kind of discovery tools they would need to grow an audience there and make money. (Twitter would also need really robust advertising infrastructure for this, IMO)