3 ms·
This was my first thought as well. Is YouTube viable as its own company at the scale it operates? I have to imagine the infrastructure costs for YouTube would
by nerdjon 4y ago
This was my first thought as well.
Is YouTube viable as its own company at the scale it operates? I have to imagine the infrastructure costs for YouTube would be extremely high and would likely cause YouTube to downgrade quality or try even harder to put a subscription behind even 1080.
Now obviously contacts can be signed and I highly doubt they would be paying normal prices in any cloud environment given this hypothetical situation. But it wouldn't be the same as it would be now.
- chrisfinazzo 4y agoYep. Does YT need Google's backing in order to survive because they don't have the resources strictly in-house to build and pay for infrastructure? Disclaimer: Not an Economist, not even close. If in the unlikely case they spun it off and another competitor emerged, would YT's scale make it hard to compete with this new entrant? Read: Red tape, bureaucracy, etc, etc. Essentially back to where they were as an independent company when they didn't have Google to "protect" them... The inverse case is what usually comes to mind first though: Would the company wither and die if not for an acquisition? Think about Sprint+TMobile. Until the deal, Sprint was in bad shape, second to Verizon with outdated tech - in the sense that emerging technologies were based more off of an evolution of GSM than CDMA. If TMo doesn't acquire them, Sprint probably goes "poof" and their customers flee to the remaining carriers, further entrenching their positions. This seems like it is usually the card European regulators tend to play, worrying more about market dynamics and how that will affect costs rather than just what people pay for service.