3 ms·
"not that expensive" is relative; it's still a lot of money. Sure, it's not trillions of dollars, but it's still billions of dollars. YouTube has historically
by Ferret7446 2y ago
"not that expensive" is relative; it's still a lot of money. Sure, it's not trillions of dollars, but it's still billions of dollars. YouTube has historically not returned a net profit (and I haven't heard of that situation changing).
- Retric 2y agoDo you have a public source for that? From what I’ve heard YouTube has been profitable year years at this point.
- AlbertCory 2y ago> Do you have a public source for that? YT financials and P&L were not broken out in audited financial statements back in the day.
- rreichman 2y agoStill aren’t. Alphabet only publishes YouTube revenue.
- AlbertCory 2y ago... and therefore, saying they're "profitable" is meaningless. Allocating costs for things from Google that they use (e.g. the Ads system) is difficult. The problem with any subsidiary.
- Delmololo 2y agoYt basically got unusable without premium though. I have premium, my wife accepts all of those ads
- 7bit 2y agoStill on Ublck Origin and I don't see any ads and all the videos.
- k12sosse 2y agoI did that for a while and then even just hearing my wife suffer through it made me upgrade to the family plan. Now I invited some other family members and we are all enjoying that premium bitrate no-ad lifestyle.
- DeathArrow 2y agoI have uBlock Origin.
- Delmololo 2y agoThat doesn't work on my LG tv
- deprecative 2y agoSkill issue.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoPiHole if the LG TV is an invariant. Otherwise, I believe casting from your ad blocked device should make the TV itself ad-free (Though for YT, "casting" may in face just be "using the app").
- will1am 2y agoIt's impossible for me to watch without premium too
- sam0x17 2y ago> YouTube has historically not returned a net profit (and I haven't heard of that situation changing). I'm sure that's what Google's accountants would love us (and the IRS) to continue to believe.
- vasco 2y agoNot sure, one could say they use their dominant search position and revenue to serve video at a loss and distort the market, making it very hard for anyone without an existing money printing machine to bootstrap a profitable video site. See vimeo.
- alickz 2y agothat was my assumption when i read they weren't profitable and also that streaming and storing video at that scale is almost a natural monopoly, with how much it must cost and how hard it would be to compete without existing resources
- Aissen 2y agoInfrastructure at scale is not as expensive as cloud vendors would have you think. Reaching scale and being a first-mover gives a significant advantage, because deploying a CDN with caches well connected with(in) every major ISP around the world takes time.