3 ms·
> I mean they (Google) do provide a service. One could possibly argue that the content creators should pay Google to distribute their material, kind of like an
by hysan 2y ago
> I mean they (Google) do provide a service. One could possibly argue that the content creators should pay Google to distribute their material, kind of like an equivalent to a AWS bill, but is anyone arguing that?
People have argued this but Google has made it clear why they won’t charge - that is their moat. By pricing the service as free, they price out all competing services by making it so that all creators, new and old, will use YouTube by default. Especially with new creators, with no startup cost and a huge audience, there is no reason for to use any service that requires payment. This effectively tanks all competitors and is why the only surviving competing streaming services target niche audiences. For example, established creators who have the sway to bring an audience with them.
- BigGreenJorts 2y agoAt the same time, YouTube AFAIK is the highest paying platform for content creators. Presumably this is because ad spots on YouTube are associated closely with the content itself, so YouTube actually has a more direct model for paying out, but is there any reason they can't be taking a bigger (but still small) cut of this revenue stream?
- jeffgreco 2y agoGoogle does charge if you don’t want ads. It’s called YouTube Premium and if one doesn’t like watching ads but do like watching YouTube, I would suggest putting one’s money where one’s mouth is.
- tpoacher 2y agoexcept there's still ads.
- hysan 2y agoI don’t understand this reply. The suggestion I’m replying to is about charging people (e.g., creators) for hosting the videos. It’s not about charging viewers. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
- throwawaygmbno 2y ago"I would suggest putting one’s money where one’s mouth is." How about no. Why would anyone that doesn't make their money by wasting everyone's time and working on ads or isn't a stock holder in Google waste their time with ads? Have you ever tracked your life wasted by ads? They will never charge and are clearly afraid to actually block ad blockers, possibly because they know they can't. I know I would watch a black mute box before every video before ever seeing a YouTube ad and sponsor block makes the rest of YouTube tolerable.
- hulitu 2y ago> if one doesn’t like watching ads but do like watching YouTube I don't like watching Youtube. The quality is crap, search is horrible, you are tracked.
- em-bee 2y agoBy pricing the service as free, they price out all competing services offering something for less than it costs to produce is illegal in some countries. and while being generous can be ok, doing so to keep out competitors is the reason why it is or should be illegal. it should at least be illegal for companies that have a monopolistic market share.
- bguebert 2y agoIt does seem like they have destroyed most of the competition. I was frustrated with the ad-blocking the other day and looking for a video but the whole first page of links was all youtube. I guess that's why they are starting to crack down on adblockers since people don't have as many other places to go now.
- Cpoll 2y ago> all creators, new and old, will use YouTube by default I think plenty of established YouTubers would like to switch to a platform that gives them more control (even if they pay hosting) if it didn't incur a hit to their viewership. New YouTubers use it because it's free and has a network effect. Old YouTubers use it because they're locked in.