4 ms·

I can say from experience and from others who have been in this position (not email, but general services); its around 1-2% of people. Nebula, the answer to th

I can say from experience and from others who have been in this position (not email, but general services); its around 1-2% of people. Nebula, the answer to the tyranny of Youtube (who works for advertisers), has a <1% conversion rate despite tons of huge Youtubers pushing it. Vid.me, the previous answer to youtubes tyranny, went bankrupt because people hate ads and also hate subscriptions, nor do they donate. I could write pages about this, but I wish I could violently shake all the children (many who are now in their 40's) that so deeply feel entitled to free content on the internet, and scream "If you are not paying directly for the product, you have no right to complain about the product". In reality the ad model is not going anywhere. Given the choice, people overwhelmingly chose to let the advertisers steer the ship if it means "free" entry.

9283409232 1y ago
Nebula just doesn't have a product I want. I don't care for early access to Youtube videos.
- DreadY2K 1y ago
  Maybe this isn't the case for you, but a number of creators I watch have some videos that they only upload to Nebula. So it's worth it for me to see those videos I otherwise wouldn't ever get to see.
paxys 1y ago
Video is impossible to break into because of how expensive it is. Even YouTube by all accounts is just breaking even. And that is with Google's entire infrastructure and advertising machinery behind it. A new entrant simply doesn't stand a chance.
- carlosjobim 1y ago
  Hold on... A ton of broadcasters, production companies, and individuals have done it and are doing it. YouTube have many competitors and some of them are enormous, such as Netflix and cable TV. Production companies are popping up all the time and are making some of the world's highest quality material. The same for individuals who are making videos. Or do you mean that YouTube needs a competitor that does exactly the same thing as YouTube?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - paxys 1y ago
    All of them are based on the traditional media production model. The companies were all well established in the industry (minus Netflix) and the only change was to go from broadcast/cable/theater to streaming. YouTube pioneered user generated videos and independent content creators. Its only competitor is probably Twitch, but that itself is owned by Amazon and losing a ton of money.
    - carlosjobim 1y ago
      All of them have the technical infrastructure to host user uploaded videos, so it's not impossible to compete with YouTube.
      - Workaccount2 1y ago
        No one does video even remotely close to the scale YT does it. YT has by far the deepest market penetration (close to 3 billion monthly users), and has by far the most hosted content, and critically, youtube adds over a half-million hours of video a day. Essentially, youtube adds more video every single day than the entirety of every other streaming service offers combined. Youtube is in it's own category, and it's unsurprising no else wants to touch it.
        carlosjobim 1y ago
        Counted in number of hours watched, I'm pretty sure that Netflix, cable TV and satellite TV, can compete with YouTube. But everybody has to start somewhere. Would it be impossible for Netflix to start adding for example 100 000 hours of user generated video per day?
        Workaccount2 1y ago
        Would it be practical and economical is the right question to ask. Providers would be more than happy to sell Netflix the build out
benhurmarcel 1y ago
I pay for Nebula and still use Youtube a ton. Nebula is nice but it doesn’t have all channels I watch.
maplant 1y ago
Vis a vis nebula, this is definitely a product issue. Dropout.tv seems to be extremely successful and has a similar value proposition
tmtvl 1y ago
I've got a Nebula lifetime membership and it's neat. I actually discovered channels through it (Not Just Bikes, WonderWhy, 12tone,...) which I hadn't heard of before. I also paid for YT Premium Lite in the past. The full YT Premium is too expensive for me, though. But I feel a better example of paying for convenience is the Twitch subscriber system. They make it work in a way that others fail at by tying it in to various things like emotes and channel points and the general sense of supporting the creators. I know YT memberships exist, but I don't know how widely those are used and they just don't seem to get pushed as much.
- viraptor 1y ago
  Twitch also lets people pay more than just the service price. So you'll they some people paying for themselves, but you'll also get whales paying for hundreds of other people. No other site I know of lets you do that really.
  - squigz 1y ago
    And it's not just that they pay for other people and that money goes to the particular streaming they're watching - they gift subs which can they be given to any other streamer if they want. Twitch does seem to have quite a versatile and user-friendly model for supporting creators. (I think? I'm not very well-versed in Twitch stuff)
JCharante 1y ago
re: rebula I'm someone willing to shell out for SaaS and I don't see nebula being significantly better than just paying for youtube premium (which I do). They have some exclusive content but paying to watch a subset of content ad-free is just not going to work out (on a large scale, I know they're worth like $200m but that's much less than $1t)

9283409232 1y ago

Nebula just doesn't have a product I want. I don't care for early access to Youtube videos.

DreadY2K 1y ago
Maybe this isn't the case for you, but a number of creators I watch have some videos that they only upload to Nebula. So it's worth it for me to see those videos I otherwise wouldn't ever get to see.

paxys 1y ago

Video is impossible to break into because of how expensive it is. Even YouTube by all accounts is just breaking even. And that is with Google's entire infrastructure and advertising machinery behind it. A new entrant simply doesn't stand a chance.

carlosjobim 1y ago
Hold on... A ton of broadcasters, production companies, and individuals have done it and are doing it. YouTube have many competitors and some of them are enormous, such as Netflix and cable TV. Production companies are popping up all the time and are making some of the world's highest quality material. The same for individuals who are making videos. Or do you mean that YouTube needs a competitor that does exactly the same thing as YouTube?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- paxys 1y ago
  All of them are based on the traditional media production model. The companies were all well established in the industry (minus Netflix) and the only change was to go from broadcast/cable/theater to streaming. YouTube pioneered user generated videos and independent content creators. Its only competitor is probably Twitch, but that itself is owned by Amazon and losing a ton of money.
  - carlosjobim 1y ago
    All of them have the technical infrastructure to host user uploaded videos, so it's not impossible to compete with YouTube.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      No one does video even remotely close to the scale YT does it. YT has by far the deepest market penetration (close to 3 billion monthly users), and has by far the most hosted content, and critically, youtube adds over a half-million hours of video a day. Essentially, youtube adds more video every single day than the entirety of every other streaming service offers combined. Youtube is in it's own category, and it's unsurprising no else wants to touch it.
      - carlosjobim 1y ago
        Counted in number of hours watched, I'm pretty sure that Netflix, cable TV and satellite TV, can compete with YouTube. But everybody has to start somewhere. Would it be impossible for Netflix to start adding for example 100 000 hours of user generated video per day?
        Workaccount2 1y ago
        Would it be practical and economical is the right question to ask. Providers would be more than happy to sell Netflix the build out

benhurmarcel 1y ago

I pay for Nebula and still use Youtube a ton. Nebula is nice but it doesn’t have all channels I watch.

maplant 1y ago

Vis a vis nebula, this is definitely a product issue. Dropout.tv seems to be extremely successful and has a similar value proposition

tmtvl 1y ago

I've got a Nebula lifetime membership and it's neat. I actually discovered channels through it (Not Just Bikes, WonderWhy, 12tone,...) which I hadn't heard of before. I also paid for YT Premium Lite in the past. The full YT Premium is too expensive for me, though. But I feel a better example of paying for convenience is the Twitch subscriber system. They make it work in a way that others fail at by tying it in to various things like emotes and channel points and the general sense of supporting the creators. I know YT memberships exist, but I don't know how widely those are used and they just don't seem to get pushed as much.

viraptor 1y ago
Twitch also lets people pay more than just the service price. So you'll they some people paying for themselves, but you'll also get whales paying for hundreds of other people. No other site I know of lets you do that really.
- squigz 1y ago
  And it's not just that they pay for other people and that money goes to the particular streaming they're watching - they gift subs which can they be given to any other streamer if they want. Twitch does seem to have quite a versatile and user-friendly model for supporting creators. (I think? I'm not very well-versed in Twitch stuff)

JCharante 1y ago

re: rebula I'm someone willing to shell out for SaaS and I don't see nebula being significantly better than just paying for youtube premium (which I do). They have some exclusive content but paying to watch a subset of content ad-free is just not going to work out (on a large scale, I know they're worth like $200m but that's much less than $1t)