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

because YT is shitting on it's own platform on that matter

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

google didn;t always own it

you need to look into that