this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
4578 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That'd be well and good if they didn't have a monopoly.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It's not a pure monopoly by choice. While it's true Youtube has a monopoly in terms of number of creators, viewers and content, it's still not a profitable venture. I heard it was burning through money to keep up with the sheer amount of content they have to deal with. Youtube is doing all this monetization now because they have ran out of VC money and upper management decided that it needs to be self-sustaining. Even the obscene amount of data Alphabet is gathering from Youtube does not create enough revenue to generate profit. But it's a "too-big-to-fail" product now so Alphabet will continue to invest. Competitors saw all of this and just noped out.

Other commercial video services, like Nebula, have popped up but they are subscription-oriented right from the get-go, like Netflix. This means they have a very small audience and it will take years to build up an audience like Youtube. So I don't see them growing, at least in the near future.

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 0 points 5 months ago

it's still not a profitable venture

Source? My understanding is that Google doesn’t publish Youtube’s expenses directly but that Youtube has been responsible for 10% of Google’s revenue for the past few years (on the order of $31.5 Billion in 2023) and that it’s more likely than not profitable when looked at in isolation.

[–] Brickardo@feddit.nl 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This very much feels like disloyal competition. If you burn through your money in the hopes of sweeping out the competitors, and then you have to dial back on your competitor's practices, it's a dead giveaway you've done something fishy

[–] foggenbooty@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Yup, but that is quite literally the name of the game in Silicon Valley.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 0 points 5 months ago

they have ran out of VC money

You know YouTube is owned by Google, not VC firms right?

Big companies sometimes keep a division / subsidiary less profitable for a time for a strategic reason, and then tighten the screws.

They generally only do this if they believe it will eventually be profitable over the long term (or support another part of the strategy so it is profitable overall). Otherwise they would have sold / shut it down earlier - the plan is always going to be to profitable.

However, while an unprofitable business always means either a plan to tighten screws, or to sell it / shut it down, tightening screws doesn't mean it is unprofitable. They always want to be more profitable, even if they already are.

[–] ealoe@ani.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I guess, no one NEEDS a video streaming platform. It's not like a transportation or a food or power company monopoly, it's one specific form of entertainment. Try going outside?

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

I guess, no one NEEDS a video streaming platform.

Nobody NEEDS social media, but when a social media does something harmful, they need to be regulated.