If i made a copy of youtube, that offered ads to everyone, that explained every copyright strike, that was responsive and transparent to the people who uploaded, i'd still be dead within a year because i couldn't operate under the ENORMOUS loss that youtube sustains

Well then you're still offering a bad service, because if you lose money because of your bad service that simply means that you're not in demand

pardon....

It doesn't matter how much you think your service is worth, the customer decides

you do realize youtube operates at a loss because of the infastructure... right?

But then that's not what happened in regards to IBM because they were out shone by the other competitors in the 80's and 90's . They couldn't keep up and tried to use some nasty tactics. However , you tube are compelled by the consumers themselves and do not prevent poetic license.

Youtube may just be operating at a loss either way, maybe it's just not something that can turn a profit

If i offer the theoretical best service and we'll say EVERYONE switches from youtube to me, i'll still be dead within a year because of the operating costs

So the answer is don't enter an unprofitable market

@Holo I know this but, it depends on how they will look at the long term pursuits . At the moment their TV series are breaking the mold.

if it's unprofitable, shouldn't the question be 'why' and not just accepting that?

Who cares if your product is the best on the market if no one wants it enough so you operate at a loss, it's the same end result, and your competitors are not the reason why you fail

This is why they have started to charge for it with premium membership.

You really need to understand the difference between an actual market bully and a monopoly

Netflix streaming is almost there though.

i'm not entirely sure ET is understanding my point here

But not for personal gratification. <:UwUzalu:583698818642608138>

I do get your point, but you don't understand how supply & demand works

@Holo no he takes a while .

Any large corporation with enough subsidiaries will be able to eat any loss from a poorly run industry, meaning that the barrier for entry is exorbitantly high

You're still arguing the wrong way

btw the only youtube competitor i've heard of is DLive and that's still a tiny service that i don't like tbh

If demand for your product is not high enough, you don't make a profit either way

It doesn't matter if there are any competitors or not, it doesn't matter what policy they have on the product

hold on there champ```How many YouTube accounts are there 2019?
Facts and Numbers
The total number of people who use YouTube – 1,300,000,000. 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute! Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube.```

Youtube **operates at a loss**

I KNOW

then stop using demand as an excuse to hide behind

it's not demand

No I won't stop using it, because it's the correct argument

So youtube doesn't make money, why then. please explain that to me, they had youtube red, that failed miserably, they had youtube shows which also failed, yet they have about 1/7th of the world population registered on their site

Youtube is operating at a loss with their service = it's not in demand
"I think I should create an alternative to Youtube, even though Youtube itself is not in demand" => Fool, bad businessman

I'm done, that is by far the most retarded twisting i've ever seen of the facts

It's not

You just don't like the fact that Youtube (or Google) is a monopoly

It's not possible to create an alternative to Youtube, NOT because Youtube is a monopoly, but because the product is not in demand

People are watching Youtube, but they're not paying a dime for it, and even with ads running Youtube can't turn a profit. This means alternative products have to offer a different experience than that of Youtube if they want to be in demand enough so they can actually turn a profit and become a serious competitor. At no point in this logic is Youtube responsible for the failure of an alternative platform.

The real problem is that these social media platforms are not behaving like platforms. Solve that problem and the REAL issue will also be solved. Because it's not about being a monopoly, it's about censorship without accountability.

Stop blaming monopolies, you're just showing your ignorance of economics.

Dude advertising was the answer!

Its not rocket science. Its simple, you just end up not doing what is necessary to keep a beneficial amount of cash. The money that Google was making from Ad revenues , however , was crushed because every country had different amounts of advertising companies and sometimes they can't keep up with the demand.

Just breakup 'big tech', easy.

What if, to make lawsuits more affordable, we gave every defendant and plaintiff the option for a public attorney, just like for defendants in criminal cases.