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

because users == money

so they get investors

but never make any profit

until the endgame

the investors foot the bill

you have no idea of the costs of video content. Hell, even if you wanted to host JUST _your_ videos, it costs a LOT

I don't think YT can make money, ever. And be completely free. Far to much server space. The reason Google keeps YT is for the collection of data. It is a gold mine for any AI project. If you get something for free your are the product.

why does it cost money? what is the overhead? server space, and a webface, right?

Google would keep YT even if it didn't make money ever, because it makes money on their other products

and the people to maintain that

traffic costs alone are huge

HD space for the video in 5 different formats is another

Bandwidth and server maintenance.

Google or Mirosoft put a sever at the bottom of the ocean to save on cooling.

well, i just figured out what the first instantiation on the moon will be

although thats not entirely accurate. space is rather hot for being so cold

Supermarkets are offering their frozen storage space to server providers. It's really expensive.

The coldest natural place in the sola system is on the moon. A creater on the northpole has never seen the sun.

first installation on the moon from private companies: a server farm

Let's start with Greenland shall we. And see how we go fro mthere.

i mean, why not start with the Antarctica? land has to be cheaper, less government regs, probably colder too

I don't think you're far from the truth there. Fast forward a few decades and you'll have power stations being commissioned there.