3 ms·

I think running the biggest video platform on the planet entirely for free is not realistic. Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for doing that

by brabel 3y ago

I think running the biggest video platform on the planet entirely for free is not realistic. Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for doing that while still giving you the opportunity to watch for free in exchange for being shown a few ads? Do you think they should be run as a charity?

imiric 3y ago
> Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for doing that while still giving you the opportunity to watch for free in exchange for being shown a few ads? I'm against it because advertising is not the only business model that works at scale. Google effectively introduced itself as a middleman between content creators and consumers, which they continue to do whether you pay with your attention/data or cash. I happily support content creators who don't rely on advertising or Google itself. I just refuse to be forced into a corrupt business model.
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  > Google effectively introduced itself as a middleman between content creators and consumers, which they continue to do whether you pay with your attention/data or cash. anybody else is free to introduce a content discovery & delivery scheme that would obviate the need for a advertising-laden middleman, but for some reason people keep downloading the YouTube app
- tiborsaas 3y ago
  What would be your ethical business model alternative to maintain YoutTube's staff, engineering, energy bill and hardware costs? Just to break even.
  - sbarre 3y ago
    Not to mention paying the creators!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- judge2020 3y ago
  Advertising is the only business model that works at scale AND can support hypergrowth. We know that subscriptions work at scale, mostly. YT Premium[1] has 100 million (Maybe 90M if there are 10M people only getting Music premium). But if YT was only available via subscription in 2010 during the gaming channel boom, it probably would have failed out of the gate. But advertising is necessary to maintain the scale YT runs at today. 100 Million subscribers is nothing compared to the >2.7 billion humans that use it. Not all of them would pay even $2/month if you let them. 1: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-music-premium-100-million-subscribers/ https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-music-premium-1...

by brabel 3y ago

imiric 3y ago

> Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for doing that while still giving you the opportunity to watch for free in exchange for being shown a few ads? I'm against it because advertising is not the only business model that works at scale. Google effectively introduced itself as a middleman between content creators and consumers, which they continue to do whether you pay with your attention/data or cash. I happily support content creators who don't rely on advertising or Google itself. I just refuse to be forced into a corrupt business model.

jazzyjackson 3y ago
> Google effectively introduced itself as a middleman between content creators and consumers, which they continue to do whether you pay with your attention/data or cash. anybody else is free to introduce a content discovery & delivery scheme that would obviate the need for a advertising-laden middleman, but for some reason people keep downloading the YouTube app
tiborsaas 3y ago
What would be your ethical business model alternative to maintain YoutTube's staff, engineering, energy bill and hardware costs? Just to break even.
- sbarre 3y ago
  Not to mention paying the creators!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
judge2020 3y ago
Advertising is the only business model that works at scale AND can support hypergrowth. We know that subscriptions work at scale, mostly. YT Premium[1] has 100 million (Maybe 90M if there are 10M people only getting Music premium). But if YT was only available via subscription in 2010 during the gaming channel boom, it probably would have failed out of the gate. But advertising is necessary to maintain the scale YT runs at today. 100 Million subscribers is nothing compared to the >2.7 billion humans that use it. Not all of them would pay even $2/month if you let them. 1: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-music-premium-100-million-subscribers/ https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-music-premium-1...