Message from @.B
Discord ID: 449236559963881472
they already are on different sites
most area already on youtube and twitter
I only use youtube, I would risk and say 90%+ of people are also there
true, but its never a good idea to only have 1 site
anything outside of youtube is irrelevant
it doesn't matter if 90% of the traffic comes from one site. because if that site changes, that 90% could go away. if you have a back up, then you stand a good chance to get back that lost crowd
that is the problem this is aiming at
there's no platform that will be able to compete with youtube in the near future
no matter what tool you make, that won't change
sure it will, if youtube keeps shooting itself in the foot
there will be a rise of aggregators, but not of platforms
if there is no other platforms, then how can there a raise of aggregators?
the video content will still be from YT
@Grenade123 No one can compete with YT, It runs at a massive loss. The only way to take a share of the market would be for Amazon or such like to get involed.
so then the site serves no purpose
you make a site that tells people to go to youtube
why
>aggregator
to FIND what they want to watch
which means that youtube sucks doing that
which means there is room in the market to provide a better method
of aggregation yes
of another platform, no
why not?
@Poppy Rider said it. Because you will be burning money for a decade
here is a question, if youtube runs at a loss, WHY do they have?
monopoly
on lost money?
just like Uber
just like Facebook
just like Twitter
this is nothing new
Tesla too
Facebook only started to make money _AFTER_ the IPO
you just listed successful companies, (maybe minus tesla), then cited a failing company as being the same
oh, you mean it just takes too long to start making money
yup
okay, new question. how did youtube start in the first place
Uber still operates on a loss