• PixxlMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d disagree here. To me it seems like YouTube isn’t a monopoly because Google is being monopolistic with it (if you do have any examples of this, please show me) but rather because of the ridiculous scale and expense of such a project. The infrastructure to support something like YouTube at the scale of YouTube is insane, and I doubt many organisations or companies have the ability to even dream of it, not to mention the extreme network effect with something like YouTube. Google doesn’t have to be monopolistic (I’m sure they would be if there were viable competitors, sure, not saying that Google’s a saint) because it’s almost impossible to compete just in sheer complexity and cost.

    It’s kind of like how the entire semiconductor industry is dependent on lithography machines from one company: ASML. But that’s not because they’re being anti-competetive, it’s because their products are insanely, extremely complex, precise and advanced. Decades upon decades and billions and billions of RnD.

    • crab@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The big problem with Google is that they are in, or a part of, almost everything on the internet, and it all funnels users back to them one way or another.

      Their search favors their own things, so if you search for anything, YouTube will come up most of the time. This by itself is enough to kill competition. Their search also recommends their browser heavily if you’re not using it, which is how they became the most-used browser, which defaults to their search, which by default recommends YouTube in most searches.

      Even if you don’t use Chrome, don’t worry because they will pay absolutely nuts money to be the default search on their competitors browsers, which is again more people to YouTube. And if that isn’t enough, most browsers are built on Chromium, which Google maintains, meaning they can sway the course of their competitors browsers over the long term, which they are doing by selectively killing and bringing in certain technologies over years.

      Android, which is also Google, I believe has YouTube installed by default, or at least all of my phones have had it. Trying to compete with defaults is almost unachievable. It’s easy to think that people will change settings, but most people don’t.

      I agree that the technology and infrastructure needed to run YouTube is huge, and it’s amazing, but that’s only part of the story. Google has so much control of so many things that even if you could build the same thing, that’s only the beginning.

      But it’s not only YouTube, it’s the same for Gmail. Gmail has so much market share that they can kill competitors by making another email service seem unreliable. And all of their services point back to Gmail.

      It’s not just that they have a monopoly on video, they have a monopoly on the whole internet.

    • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t put all the financial costs on one single company. Spread the financial costs out among lots of people and run small peertube servers. If a creator becomes popular, then the people watching their videos at the same time will be sharing the video with anybody else who loads it afterwards and take load off the server so it does not crash.

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        PeerTube needs a better way to monetize videos, I think. I know the Fediverse and FOSS community is generally against paying for things like content, but the fact is that most content creators aren’t gonna create for free.