5 ms·

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

by 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.

by atty 4y ago

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.