4 ms·

That alternatives to YouTube have come to naught feels unfortunately like a de facto monopoly. Certainly it's because the content creators stay on YouTube beca

That alternatives to YouTube have come to naught feels unfortunately like a de facto monopoly. Certainly it's because the content creators stay on YouTube because that's "where the eyeballs are". (Or rather, the money is to be made there on ad revenue ... because that's where the eyeballs are.) I don't know how you break that. eBay is probably in the same enviable position.

veggieroll 1y ago
Ultimately, we need to convince DC to start enforcing monopoly laws again.
- nine_zeros 1y ago
  Ain't happening with the current party at the helm.
  - veggieroll 1y ago
    [flagged]
- spwa4 1y ago
  That won't work, Youtube is fundamentally dependent on massive storage, massive compute and massive internet connectivity PLUS a revenue mechanism for creators. A whole lot of infrastructure. Monopoly laws and taxes are punitive. In other words: they can only ever create a situation where there is fundamentally less available. They cannot create a second Youtube, they can only destroy Youtube. Unless the government builds the infrastructure, which is a nonstarter. If you cannot use state power and/or resources to create a second and third Youtube, then letting Youtube be a monopoly is probably the best option. The big difference between competitors and a monopoly is that a monopolist can only improve outcomes by growing the market ... which is exactly what we want. Unfortunately it is very much not what the government wants. Well, it is not what governments (plural) want. Governments think they're god, and of course like two people in a madhouse that both think they're god, there is a rather fundamental disagreement here. They will realize, eventually, just how stupid it would be for god to let other gods (anyone but themselves, other governments, but also private people) control mass media. This means we will get closer and closer to the situation that Youtube cannot satisfy multiple governments. This could even apply to multiple parties within one state structure. You would hope this means they'll build infrastructure, but we all know what will really happen: they'll destroy it. Youtube will end because governments will see it as a threat to them, and they just won't care how much damage they're doing. Just look at the current government. There are a LOT of economy texts, some quite old that warn about the dangers of letting private interests control the only market for anything. They suggest the government should make sure they own or at least control the market itself, but that includes paying for infrastructure. This has it's own problems (like censorship), but there is really no alternative. Either you do that or eventually the monopolists will BE the government.
  - mike_hearn 1y ago
    YouTube isn't a monopoly. Quite a few creators I watch heavily promote their videos on other sites, usually targeted specifically at learning. I guess they get a better revshare there. Unfortunately for them, I don't watch enough of their learning content to care about subscribing. But it's an option, and if I wanted to spend more time watching videos I could do so. Operating a site with all the features and scale of YouTube is prohibitively difficult just because YouTube sets the bar so high, but operating a smaller more targeted competitor isn't. There are no barriers to entering the market. And that's largely thanks to Google and how they pushed so much video functionality into Chrome itself!
    - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
      For most people, "entering the market" includes scoring high on virality, or even just "potential for virality". If not on YT or TikTok (or maybe insta too), it is very, very, very hard to score highly for those metrics.
  - black3r 1y ago
    > Youtube is fundamentally dependent on massive storage, massive compute and massive internet connectivity PLUS a revenue mechanism for creators. A whole lot of infrastructure. Yes, and YouTube essentially gets all of this infrastructure from its parent company for free and still operates at a loss. So no other company who doesn't already have such infrastructure for other purposes can effectively compete with YouTube, and all such attempts were effectively destroyed by YouTube because YouTube could offer better services while still operating at a loss. Monopoly laws should've prevented a situation like this. Of course YouTube wouldn't be able to provide its services at current scale if it didn't have Google backing. But perhaps that could've made the current content market better. If YouTube had to place some restrictions on uploaded content because it wouldn't afford unlimited storage and bandwidth, it wouldn't push creators to make every video 10+ minutes long, and if creators had to pay at least some minimal fees (while they could still get residuals from ads if the video was successful) to post videos, we wouldn't have so much low quality videos there. And the competition could maybe give us better features we don't even dream of today.
- ThatPlayer 1y ago
  It is not monopoly laws, it is anti-competition laws. It's not anti-competitive to have a monopoly from a superior product: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... > Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal
Analemma_ 1y ago
It’s even worse than you think, because by all accounts YouTube is absurdly expensive to operate. Some even claim to that this day it has still never turned a profit for Google. And if Google can’t make it work— with their own ad network, tons of their own fiber, their own operating system, etc.— it’s likely that nobody can. Hosting unlimited video for free is just stupefyingly expensive.
- Velorivox 1y ago
  First, this is just a pervasive myth. Not that Google doesn’t operate money losing services: Blogger is a good example of that. Second, “if Google can’t make it work no one can” is also a myth. YouTube, even the idea of which came after Google video was already launched, is a good example of that. And, of course, Google+…
  - jpc0 1y ago
    I’m absolutely talking out of my ass but I don’t think YouTube the company was profitable before the Google acquisition and I was under the impression that the increased aggressiveness about ads (displaying and preventing adblock) and the resulting YouTube premium push was a drive towards getting the YouTube subproject to be profitable. It’s not impossible to make a video streaming platform profitable, but it definitely is hard and it likely isn’t possible with arbitrary unlimited free uploads.
    - jraby3 1y ago
      Hosting costs are only going down. Now with nuclear energy costs will continue dropping as well. Google doesn't break out costs but their last earnings report yesterday had YouTube revenue at $9.79 billion for the quarter. I find it hard to believe that it's not profitable.
      - rightbyte 1y ago
        "one billion hours of videos every day." according to Wiki. So 9.79/365*4 = 11 cents per hour of video. I dunno what you need to profit from 1h of video.
Dig1t 1y ago
It’s also really hard to compete with YouTube simply due to the cost of compute and storage associated with serving video. The costs are way higher than most any other type of website. You have to do transcoding and also store multiple versions of videos at different resolutions. There are few companies with the resources to create a real competitor.
RumourRider 1y ago
It is partly the network effect. However all the alternatives having serious issues: - Odysee - has performance issues and the app is crap and no discoverability. Some niche, interesting content on there but a lot of the time I only used it because someone would upload Joe Rogan stuff while he was exclusive to Spotify. - BitChute - full of racists and not a lot else, crap discoverability. The website feels like something from the 2000s. - Rumble - US/UK right wing slop politics and conspiracy rubbish from David Icke wannabes. I don't like the interface at all. Tends to work okay. But there is very few things I want to watch/listen to on there. Discoverability isn't great. - Daily motion - I remember it being decent a decade ago, but it has fallen behind and turned into something else from briefly looking at the home page. - Twitch - Streaming platform only, I think. There is a lot of slop left wing politics on it and (for want of a better term) "titty streamers". I have visited the site once, not for me. - Kick - Basically Twitch but has more permissive T&C. Bankrolled by Stake.com IIRC. I watch one live show if I am awake to watch it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with it. I spend most of my time on YouTube watching stuff either about Computers, Repairing 4x4 trucks, Weird Soviet Era vehicles, WW2 stuff by Mark Felton or some sort of Tech related stuff. None of that is catered to on the alternative sites at all. None of that is catered by TV particularly well either.
- QAkICoU7IDNkpFu 1y ago
  - Odysee - Has an easily accessible RSS feed, a link to download every video and it has no ads. Unfortunately nothing original going on here. Just a repository for YouTube's sloppy seconds. - BitChute - If you can get past the 'racists' and the MGTOW gayness that dominates the front page, this site has a rather large catalog of free movies available. - Rumble - If you can get past the political slop, this site streams a lot of NFL sportsball for free . - Twitch - I used to go here to watch my sportsball but the site is now overexposed, old and busted. Can't go five seconds with a copyright notice appearing.
WhyNotHugo 1y ago
YouTube is mostly popular, but it doesn’t really stand out in any technical way. Content creators prefer YouTube because it has more users, and each creator is afraid that their followers wouldn’t follow them to another platform. Even content creators focused on open source or self-hosting kind of tech. Honestly, I really wonder if users would refuse to follow creators whom they like to another platform. Are most people really that adverse to just watching videos on another website?
- hkon 1y ago
  Yes
- SllX 1y ago
  Watching videos on other websites isn't the issue, but where are you going to find new videos to watch? Where are you going to search to find a video on a specific thing, a recipe, a how-to, or some other more obscure thing? Right now that's YouTube and TikTok.
  - WhyNotHugo 1y ago
    If I want to follow someone, I’d use RSS, or subscribe to a newsletter. If I want to find videos on a specific topic, I use a search engine. DuckDuckGo yields much better results than YouTube, even when the results are hosted on YouTube itself.
    - SllX 1y ago
      Sure, searching with an external search engine is an option, but YouTube and TikTok also just bring videos to you. In other words, they offer passive discovery you just don’t get with a search engine. It’s fine if that’s not what you want, but people do love it and it keeps them going back to YouTube and TikTok.
- nozzlegear 1y ago
  > Honestly, I really wonder if users would refuse to follow creators whom they like to another platform. Are most people really that adverse to just watching videos on another website? My wife and I watch ~15 hours of YouTube together each week, entirely on our Apple TV. If someone we watch were to move to another platform, we just wouldn't watch them anymore. Honestly even if there is an Apple TV app for the other platform, it's still unlikely we'd switch over just to watch them instead of filling up their "time slot" with someone else.

veggieroll 1y ago

Ultimately, we need to convince DC to start enforcing monopoly laws again.

nine_zeros 1y ago
Ain't happening with the current party at the helm.
- veggieroll 1y ago
  [flagged]
spwa4 1y ago
That won't work, Youtube is fundamentally dependent on massive storage, massive compute and massive internet connectivity PLUS a revenue mechanism for creators. A whole lot of infrastructure. Monopoly laws and taxes are punitive. In other words: they can only ever create a situation where there is fundamentally less available. They cannot create a second Youtube, they can only destroy Youtube. Unless the government builds the infrastructure, which is a nonstarter. If you cannot use state power and/or resources to create a second and third Youtube, then letting Youtube be a monopoly is probably the best option. The big difference between competitors and a monopoly is that a monopolist can only improve outcomes by growing the market ... which is exactly what we want. Unfortunately it is very much not what the government wants. Well, it is not what governments (plural) want. Governments think they're god, and of course like two people in a madhouse that both think they're god, there is a rather fundamental disagreement here. They will realize, eventually, just how stupid it would be for god to let other gods (anyone but themselves, other governments, but also private people) control mass media. This means we will get closer and closer to the situation that Youtube cannot satisfy multiple governments. This could even apply to multiple parties within one state structure. You would hope this means they'll build infrastructure, but we all know what will really happen: they'll destroy it. Youtube will end because governments will see it as a threat to them, and they just won't care how much damage they're doing. Just look at the current government. There are a LOT of economy texts, some quite old that warn about the dangers of letting private interests control the only market for anything. They suggest the government should make sure they own or at least control the market itself, but that includes paying for infrastructure. This has it's own problems (like censorship), but there is really no alternative. Either you do that or eventually the monopolists will BE the government.
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  YouTube isn't a monopoly. Quite a few creators I watch heavily promote their videos on other sites, usually targeted specifically at learning. I guess they get a better revshare there. Unfortunately for them, I don't watch enough of their learning content to care about subscribing. But it's an option, and if I wanted to spend more time watching videos I could do so. Operating a site with all the features and scale of YouTube is prohibitively difficult just because YouTube sets the bar so high, but operating a smaller more targeted competitor isn't. There are no barriers to entering the market. And that's largely thanks to Google and how they pushed so much video functionality into Chrome itself!
  - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
    For most people, "entering the market" includes scoring high on virality, or even just "potential for virality". If not on YT or TikTok (or maybe insta too), it is very, very, very hard to score highly for those metrics.
- black3r 1y ago
  > Youtube is fundamentally dependent on massive storage, massive compute and massive internet connectivity PLUS a revenue mechanism for creators. A whole lot of infrastructure. Yes, and YouTube essentially gets all of this infrastructure from its parent company for free and still operates at a loss. So no other company who doesn't already have such infrastructure for other purposes can effectively compete with YouTube, and all such attempts were effectively destroyed by YouTube because YouTube could offer better services while still operating at a loss. Monopoly laws should've prevented a situation like this. Of course YouTube wouldn't be able to provide its services at current scale if it didn't have Google backing. But perhaps that could've made the current content market better. If YouTube had to place some restrictions on uploaded content because it wouldn't afford unlimited storage and bandwidth, it wouldn't push creators to make every video 10+ minutes long, and if creators had to pay at least some minimal fees (while they could still get residuals from ads if the video was successful) to post videos, we wouldn't have so much low quality videos there. And the competition could maybe give us better features we don't even dream of today.
ThatPlayer 1y ago
It is not monopoly laws, it is anti-competition laws. It's not anti-competitive to have a monopoly from a superior product: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... > Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal

Analemma_ 1y ago

It’s even worse than you think, because by all accounts YouTube is absurdly expensive to operate. Some even claim to that this day it has still never turned a profit for Google. And if Google can’t make it work— with their own ad network, tons of their own fiber, their own operating system, etc.— it’s likely that nobody can. Hosting unlimited video for free is just stupefyingly expensive.

Velorivox 1y ago
First, this is just a pervasive myth. Not that Google doesn’t operate money losing services: Blogger is a good example of that. Second, “if Google can’t make it work no one can” is also a myth. YouTube, even the idea of which came after Google video was already launched, is a good example of that. And, of course, Google+…
- jpc0 1y ago
  I’m absolutely talking out of my ass but I don’t think YouTube the company was profitable before the Google acquisition and I was under the impression that the increased aggressiveness about ads (displaying and preventing adblock) and the resulting YouTube premium push was a drive towards getting the YouTube subproject to be profitable. It’s not impossible to make a video streaming platform profitable, but it definitely is hard and it likely isn’t possible with arbitrary unlimited free uploads.
  - jraby3 1y ago
    Hosting costs are only going down. Now with nuclear energy costs will continue dropping as well. Google doesn't break out costs but their last earnings report yesterday had YouTube revenue at $9.79 billion for the quarter. I find it hard to believe that it's not profitable.
    - rightbyte 1y ago
      "one billion hours of videos every day." according to Wiki. So 9.79/365*4 = 11 cents per hour of video. I dunno what you need to profit from 1h of video.

Dig1t 1y ago

It’s also really hard to compete with YouTube simply due to the cost of compute and storage associated with serving video. The costs are way higher than most any other type of website. You have to do transcoding and also store multiple versions of videos at different resolutions. There are few companies with the resources to create a real competitor.

RumourRider 1y ago

It is partly the network effect. However all the alternatives having serious issues: - Odysee - has performance issues and the app is crap and no discoverability. Some niche, interesting content on there but a lot of the time I only used it because someone would upload Joe Rogan stuff while he was exclusive to Spotify. - BitChute - full of racists and not a lot else, crap discoverability. The website feels like something from the 2000s. - Rumble - US/UK right wing slop politics and conspiracy rubbish from David Icke wannabes. I don't like the interface at all. Tends to work okay. But there is very few things I want to watch/listen to on there. Discoverability isn't great. - Daily motion - I remember it being decent a decade ago, but it has fallen behind and turned into something else from briefly looking at the home page. - Twitch - Streaming platform only, I think. There is a lot of slop left wing politics on it and (for want of a better term) "titty streamers". I have visited the site once, not for me. - Kick - Basically Twitch but has more permissive T&C. Bankrolled by Stake.com IIRC. I watch one live show if I am awake to watch it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with it. I spend most of my time on YouTube watching stuff either about Computers, Repairing 4x4 trucks, Weird Soviet Era vehicles, WW2 stuff by Mark Felton or some sort of Tech related stuff. None of that is catered to on the alternative sites at all. None of that is catered by TV particularly well either.

QAkICoU7IDNkpFu 1y ago
- Odysee - Has an easily accessible RSS feed, a link to download every video and it has no ads. Unfortunately nothing original going on here. Just a repository for YouTube's sloppy seconds. - BitChute - If you can get past the 'racists' and the MGTOW gayness that dominates the front page, this site has a rather large catalog of free movies available. - Rumble - If you can get past the political slop, this site streams a lot of NFL sportsball for free . - Twitch - I used to go here to watch my sportsball but the site is now overexposed, old and busted. Can't go five seconds with a copyright notice appearing.

WhyNotHugo 1y ago

YouTube is mostly popular, but it doesn’t really stand out in any technical way. Content creators prefer YouTube because it has more users, and each creator is afraid that their followers wouldn’t follow them to another platform. Even content creators focused on open source or self-hosting kind of tech. Honestly, I really wonder if users would refuse to follow creators whom they like to another platform. Are most people really that adverse to just watching videos on another website?

hkon 1y ago
Yes
SllX 1y ago
Watching videos on other websites isn't the issue, but where are you going to find new videos to watch? Where are you going to search to find a video on a specific thing, a recipe, a how-to, or some other more obscure thing? Right now that's YouTube and TikTok.
- WhyNotHugo 1y ago
  If I want to follow someone, I’d use RSS, or subscribe to a newsletter. If I want to find videos on a specific topic, I use a search engine. DuckDuckGo yields much better results than YouTube, even when the results are hosted on YouTube itself.
  - SllX 1y ago
    Sure, searching with an external search engine is an option, but YouTube and TikTok also just bring videos to you. In other words, they offer passive discovery you just don’t get with a search engine. It’s fine if that’s not what you want, but people do love it and it keeps them going back to YouTube and TikTok.
nozzlegear 1y ago
> Honestly, I really wonder if users would refuse to follow creators whom they like to another platform. Are most people really that adverse to just watching videos on another website? My wife and I watch ~15 hours of YouTube together each week, entirely on our Apple TV. If someone we watch were to move to another platform, we just wouldn't watch them anymore. Honestly even if there is an Apple TV app for the other platform, it's still unlikely we'd switch over just to watch them instead of filling up their "time slot" with someone else.