3 ms·

it's certainly different than Netflix given that they actually make content. On Youtube you're just paying a tax to the fiefdom. Given that a lot of creators ha

it's certainly different than Netflix given that they actually make content. On Youtube you're just paying a tax to the fiefdom. Given that a lot of creators have patreon which takes a miniscule cut I'd rather pay creators as directly as possible. Paying a company with a market dominating position 150 bucks per year to not hold me hostage with blocked UI functions is kind of ridiculous.

igetspam 4y ago
While I wouldn't pay for YT either, they do have serious infrastructure costs so it's not quite as you describe.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  While I agree with your comment there is something seriously wrong with the fact that Google can use its infinite funds so that a serious competitor for YT never has any chances of appearing. If YT were a standalone company and would compete on fair terms in others, we might see some reasonable business models appear.
jsnell 4y ago
We know how much Netflix spends on content. In 2022, it was 52% of their revenue ($16.7B content budget, $32B revenue). We also know how much YouTube pays for the content, since their ad revenue split has been public for like a decade. It's 55% to the creators for the content, 45% to YouTube for the technical and social infrastructure. Huh. Looks like YouTube pays more for their content than Netflix does! Given the only stated basis for your opinion turned out to be incorrect, are you changing your mind?
- Barrin92 4y ago
  No, that napkin math doesn't check out unless you think Youtube is a non-profit. They pocket half of what creators make, and that has no relationship to their infrastructure cost, it's a function of their market power. They could change that revenue split tomorrow to 70/30 while they cut infrastructure costs for all you or I know. You somehow turned my argument on its head. I don't care how much Netflix or YT pay for content, I only care that I pay directly for content, and because Netflix is a media company, not a platform, I don't need to guess how much they're squeezing creators or consumers. I transparently pay for a movie catalog, and that is the service provided.

igetspam 4y ago

While I wouldn't pay for YT either, they do have serious infrastructure costs so it's not quite as you describe.

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
While I agree with your comment there is something seriously wrong with the fact that Google can use its infinite funds so that a serious competitor for YT never has any chances of appearing. If YT were a standalone company and would compete on fair terms in others, we might see some reasonable business models appear.

jsnell 4y ago

We know how much Netflix spends on content. In 2022, it was 52% of their revenue ($16.7B content budget, $32B revenue). We also know how much YouTube pays for the content, since their ad revenue split has been public for like a decade. It's 55% to the creators for the content, 45% to YouTube for the technical and social infrastructure. Huh. Looks like YouTube pays more for their content than Netflix does! Given the only stated basis for your opinion turned out to be incorrect, are you changing your mind?

Barrin92 4y ago
No, that napkin math doesn't check out unless you think Youtube is a non-profit. They pocket half of what creators make, and that has no relationship to their infrastructure cost, it's a function of their market power. They could change that revenue split tomorrow to 70/30 while they cut infrastructure costs for all you or I know. You somehow turned my argument on its head. I don't care how much Netflix or YT pay for content, I only care that I pay directly for content, and because Netflix is a media company, not a platform, I don't need to guess how much they're squeezing creators or consumers. I transparently pay for a movie catalog, and that is the service provided.