Ask HN: Why doesn't YouTube have a competitor?

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

mohanmcgeek wrote: post #140

somesortofthing wrote: post #50

Because Youtube can only make sense to run within Google. Youtube's actual service of providing free HD streaming video in exchange for showing the viewers ads is not, has never been, and cannot be profitable. Totally free, unlimited HD video streaming is just too expensive. It can only exist as part of a huge conglomerate because the only purpose Youtube can serve is to attract people into the ecosystem it's part of…

The day Google shows a split up between YouTube ad revenue vs the rest, it's going to be an AWS moment. I don't know why people believe YouTube is a loss maker. My guess is that it makes up 25% of the ad income

Post by clairity » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 11:18 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #192

clairity wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're too focused on product here, which is not strategy. it's exactly the common sort of myopia that needs conscientious correction to understand how markets and market distortions operate.

You're trying really hard to ascribe ill motives to the actual strategy of "let's build a cool thing and figure out how to monetize it later, and I'm not sure why. Doing so makes you do weird things like insist that product strategy isn't strategy, and that real strategy is "be anticompetitive". I don't get it.

Post by joshuamorton » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 11:41 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #193

joshuamorton wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trying really hard to ascribe ill motives to the actual strategy of "let's build a cool thing and figure out how to monetize it later, and I'm not sure why. Doing so makes you do weird things like insist that product strategy isn't strategy, and that real strategy is "be anticompetitive". I don't get it.

your goal seems not to understand but to defend, which is why you seem to avoid engaging in the substance of the argument, but rather resorting to an ad hominem . no one owes you feel-good esteem or deference for choosing google's hoards of cash over ethics.

Post by posix86 » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 11:43 PM UTC

ageitgey wrote: post #168

clairity wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the parent comment was a list of technical attributes about how youtube got there (used as rationale for why it's impossible to compete). i countered that that's not how it got there, as it's emphasizing tactics, not strategy. it's hard to formulate a coherent competitive strategy if you entirely misunderstand your competitor's successful (if anti-competitive) strategy. it's like playing chess by focusing on taking a…

I think you misinterpreted my original post. My post was a list of some of the capital intensive challenges a competitor would have to solve now to operate a similar business to YouTube as it exists now (many of which aren't even technical, like growing an ad market and getting creators on board). The point was that unless you already have a money printing business in another area that you can use to chase this for y…

Post by littlestymaar » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #38

WJW wrote: post #14

> Apart from network effect, and Google's Ad Monopoly This is like asking "why don't we live on the moon except that there is no atmosphere there and it's pretty far away?". Those two reasons are the main reasons Youtube is the clear winner in its field, saying "apart from that" does not make a lot of sense. If you'd want to start a competitor to take on Youtube, you either need to focus on a tiny niche not well serv…

>or porn I'm quite confident you'll find Mindgeek/Pornhub has a Youtube-esque unassailable position in that market segment. Unless you're catering to illegal content, but I think you'll find that market isn't the greatest for building a profitable business on.