Well, YouTube-the-hosting-business definitely doesn't fit in very well with Goo-Alpha-whatever (being, really, an advertising-cum-PI-broker), but that's hardly

Well, YouTube-the-hosting-business definitely doesn't fit in very well with Goo-Alpha-whatever (being, really, an advertising-cum-PI-broker), but that's hardly the fault of the owning company. Fact is: there is very little business sense in an outfit like YouTube. You have massive server costs, massive bandwidth costs, a fickle audience, a precarious copyright situation, and very little margin for recovery. Yet, YouTube is and remains popular. Very very popular. So, you would think there is some room for a play there. And there have been sufficient suggestions from various parties on what that play should be. Increase advertising. Go full-Spotify. Et cetera, ad absurdum. What YouTube has implemented is a mediocre mix of worst-case options: sure, customers can get a subscription, but it does not actually offer any advantages. And yes, partners can create opportunities, but only if they're a top-10 media company, and therefore won't create anything if their life literally depended on it. Smaller partners are smothered: Alpha-Goo-tube could listen to them, but they don't and won't. So, YouTube right now is an entire market-in-itself waiting to be disrupted. Spotify did it for audio; who will be the disruptor for video, and when, remains to be seen. Given the current market conditions, we'll have to wait a year or two, but that YouTube is toast is pretty much a given.