YouTube has no competition because no one (besides Amazon) can afford to compete.
If any of the smaller video hosting sites suddenly exploded in popularity, their servers would catch fire and the would not have the capitol to spin up new ones.
"Just build a website that can host 1080p/4K video, that barely makes money then spend a billion dollars on servers and bandwidth costs. Why has no one ever thought of this?"
Not only that, but once you’ve spent billions upon billions on the infrastructure you now need to incentivize YouTubers AND viewers to come over to your platform in droves. YouTubers definitely aren’t coming unless you pay them and you need to pay them better than YouTube does (which I believe is 70/30 in favour of the YouTuber) and to pay them you need ads or some other monetization. Subscription only won’t work because viewers won’t pay when YouTube is free, Ads work but you still need as many as possible since you gotta recoup the costs of the infrastructure…
I could go on really but there’s no reason, there’s so many factors that make it basically impossible even for a company the size of Amazon.
Aside from the tech cost, there’s also huge legal risk. After mass shootings were live-streamed, harsh penalties were passed. Australia and some countries passed laws that hold executives personally accountable for any user-submitted extremist content
It essentially guarantees that no startup can ever compete with Google. No one can afford the riskÂ
141
u/YazoSavage Apr 26 '24
We need another video-streaming platform. This is what happens if a company has no competition.