4 ms·

> Right now, however, there is basically very little > actual negotiation between the platform provider and the > content creator. The former gets the vast

> Right now, however, there is basically very little > actual negotiation between the platform provider and the > content creator. The former gets the vast majority of > all revenue; the latter mostly works for free. We > consumers enjoy our free, ad-supported video site The uploader decides whether a particular video has ads or not. According to http://allthingsd.com/20130304/youtubes-show-me-the-money-problem/ http://allthingsd.com/20130304/youtubes-show-me-the-money-pr... YouTube takes a 45% cut, which means the content creator ends up with the majority of the ad revenue.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
I stand corrected, downvote away.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
You get a better split with the mob. 45%? Wow.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  That sort of split seems to be fairly typical of user-generated content sites. For example, Amazon takes 65% of revenue from self-published Kindle titles, and Apple takes around 55% from music sold in iTunes[1]. [1] http://www.innojazz.com/2013/03/revenue-split-of-itunes-album.html http://www.innojazz.com/2013/03/revenue-split-of-itunes-albu...
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Just because its typical doesn't mean its fair nor right. Also, next time through a disclaimer in that you work for Google.
    - jmillikin 13y ago
      > Also, next time through a disclaimer in that you work for Google. I already state that in my profile. People who constantly name-drop their employer in their posts are obnoxious.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  Every content creator is free to roll out his own architecture of streaming video, strike ad deals and get 100% of the income. Comparing Youtube to the mob is not a valid argument.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    I'd argue Android's ecosystem and investment is enormous compared to Youtube, and they take a smaller cut from apps/in-app purchases than Youtube. There's just something slimy about taking that much of a cut from someone's work. Its disgusting.
    - jmillikin 13y ago
      > I'd argue Android's ecosystem and investment is > enormous compared to Youtube, and they take a smaller > cut from apps/in-app purchases than Youtube. You can do some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations on the storage and bandwidth requirements of video and applications. It's very expensive to process, store, and serve video at YouTube's scale. See http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html for some numbers. > There's just something slimy about taking that much of > a cut from someone's work. Its disgusting. When media hosting sites take half of revenue, it's not out of sheer greed. Most of that money goes right into paying for bandwidth and compute to keep the service running. For example, iTunes Music is believed to have profit margins in the low single digits -- based on Apple's financial statements, it's barely break-even. Apple's App Store is much more profitable, despite taking only 30% of revenue.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

I stand corrected, downvote away.

toomuchtodo 13y ago

You get a better split with the mob. 45%? Wow.

jmillikin 13y ago
That sort of split seems to be fairly typical of user-generated content sites. For example, Amazon takes 65% of revenue from self-published Kindle titles, and Apple takes around 55% from music sold in iTunes[1]. [1] http://www.innojazz.com/2013/03/revenue-split-of-itunes-album.html http://www.innojazz.com/2013/03/revenue-split-of-itunes-albu...
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Just because its typical doesn't mean its fair nor right. Also, next time through a disclaimer in that you work for Google.
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    > Also, next time through a disclaimer in that you work for Google. I already state that in my profile. People who constantly name-drop their employer in their posts are obnoxious.
vdaniuk 13y ago
Every content creator is free to roll out his own architecture of streaming video, strike ad deals and get 100% of the income. Comparing Youtube to the mob is not a valid argument.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  I'd argue Android's ecosystem and investment is enormous compared to Youtube, and they take a smaller cut from apps/in-app purchases than Youtube. There's just something slimy about taking that much of a cut from someone's work. Its disgusting.
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    > I'd argue Android's ecosystem and investment is > enormous compared to Youtube, and they take a smaller > cut from apps/in-app purchases than Youtube. You can do some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations on the storage and bandwidth requirements of video and applications. It's very expensive to process, store, and serve video at YouTube's scale. See http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html for some numbers. > There's just something slimy about taking that much of > a cut from someone's work. Its disgusting. When media hosting sites take half of revenue, it's not out of sheer greed. Most of that money goes right into paying for bandwidth and compute to keep the service running. For example, iTunes Music is believed to have profit margins in the low single digits -- based on Apple's financial statements, it's barely break-even. Apple's App Store is much more profitable, despite taking only 30% of revenue.