3 ms·

> Ya'll don't want to pay It's easy to wonder why. The status quo at the time had been that user-submitted video content (YouTube) is free. It was only free be

> Ya'll don't want to pay It's easy to wonder why. The status quo at the time had been that user-submitted video content (YouTube) is free. It was only free because Alphabet had their losses from YouTube subsidized by their profits from Google. Maybe not for all, but for many this is an anti-trust issue.

Workaccount2 3y ago
Youtube was not free at the time vid.me came to be. Also, using money from one business to keep another business alive is not a monopolistic practice. Plenty of tech companies have had the technical and monetary firepower to run a youtube competitor. But you just have to read a few threads on the internet from anytime in the last decade talking about youtube and monetization to see why no one wanted to jump in. This thread included.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > Youtube was not free at the time vid.me came to be. Sorry but this take is pretty wild to me. I can understand that there is a paid option but YouTube is free today given that I can currently watch a video after watching a couple ads without paying any money. > Also, using money from one business to keep another business alive is not a monopolistic practice. I'm not sure this is true in theory but, regardless, to each their own. This practice of keeping competitors down by subsidizing business losses with profits from another business, only to try to change the status quo for their customers, seems pretty shitty from where I'm standing.
  - bloppe 3y ago
    I see nothing wrong with subsidizing customer costs per se. The only potential problems arise when this leads to lock-in. You could argue that subsidizing videos helps achieve lock-in via network effects. If we can just figure out a way to regulate away those network effects (forced interop), then there's nothing wrong with the subsidies.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    Ad-supported is not the same as free. It's been a long time since youtube was free.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      Again, that is a non-obvious conclusion. Many people will consider ad-supported to be free for the sole reason that it doesn't affect the amount in their bank account.
      - Workaccount2 3y ago
        Ok? That doesn't change the facts at hand though Watching ads is what covers the cost of watching a video. It's no secret that running a site like youtube is extremely expensive.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        In this thread I'm responding to this: > No one else wants to run a lemonade stand because they can see customers do not want to pay for lemondade. Of course nobody wanted to pay with ad view time because youtube didn't require that. In practice, one could watch a youtube video without watching any ads and the practice was allowed because it kept competitors down. > Watching ads is what covers the cost of watching a video. It's no secret that running a site like youtube is extremely expensive. This is exactly correct, and it's why this practice was so effective. Nobody wants to pay with their time and youtube didn't force them. Why is someone going to go to Vid.me where they will be disallowed from blocking ads? The only reason it wasn't necessary for youtube to show the ads is that they had their losses subsidized by google's profits. Going back to what you initially wrote: > No one else wants to run a lemonade stand because they can see customers do not want to pay for lemondade. Because there was a lemonade stand backed by the profits of one of the most profitable companies in history handing out free lemonade, no questions asked. Yeah, nobody else wanted to pay for something that was free in practice, even in the context of time spent watching an ad.
Aunche 3y ago
> The status quo at the time had been that user-submitted video content (YouTube) is free. It's not free. You payment is that you watch the ads.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Workaccount2 3y ago

Youtube was not free at the time vid.me came to be. Also, using money from one business to keep another business alive is not a monopolistic practice. Plenty of tech companies have had the technical and monetary firepower to run a youtube competitor. But you just have to read a few threads on the internet from anytime in the last decade talking about youtube and monetization to see why no one wanted to jump in. This thread included.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> Youtube was not free at the time vid.me came to be. Sorry but this take is pretty wild to me. I can understand that there is a paid option but YouTube is free today given that I can currently watch a video after watching a couple ads without paying any money. > Also, using money from one business to keep another business alive is not a monopolistic practice. I'm not sure this is true in theory but, regardless, to each their own. This practice of keeping competitors down by subsidizing business losses with profits from another business, only to try to change the status quo for their customers, seems pretty shitty from where I'm standing.
- bloppe 3y ago
  I see nothing wrong with subsidizing customer costs per se. The only potential problems arise when this leads to lock-in. You could argue that subsidizing videos helps achieve lock-in via network effects. If we can just figure out a way to regulate away those network effects (forced interop), then there's nothing wrong with the subsidies.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Ad-supported is not the same as free. It's been a long time since youtube was free.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    Again, that is a non-obvious conclusion. Many people will consider ad-supported to be free for the sole reason that it doesn't affect the amount in their bank account.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      Ok? That doesn't change the facts at hand though Watching ads is what covers the cost of watching a video. It's no secret that running a site like youtube is extremely expensive.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        In this thread I'm responding to this: > No one else wants to run a lemonade stand because they can see customers do not want to pay for lemondade. Of course nobody wanted to pay with ad view time because youtube didn't require that. In practice, one could watch a youtube video without watching any ads and the practice was allowed because it kept competitors down. > Watching ads is what covers the cost of watching a video. It's no secret that running a site like youtube is extremely expensive. This is exactly correct, and it's why this practice was so effective. Nobody wants to pay with their time and youtube didn't force them. Why is someone going to go to Vid.me where they will be disallowed from blocking ads? The only reason it wasn't necessary for youtube to show the ads is that they had their losses subsidized by google's profits. Going back to what you initially wrote: > No one else wants to run a lemonade stand because they can see customers do not want to pay for lemondade. Because there was a lemonade stand backed by the profits of one of the most profitable companies in history handing out free lemonade, no questions asked. Yeah, nobody else wanted to pay for something that was free in practice, even in the context of time spent watching an ad.

Aunche 3y ago

> The status quo at the time had been that user-submitted video content (YouTube) is free. It's not free. You payment is that you watch the ads.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]