YouTube competitors

[Indian pc builder]

In the world we have with its skyrocketing bandwidth costs, is it even possible for a real viable competitor for YouTube to ever exist?

[KingTdiGGiTTy]

I think it is possible for an alternative to enter the market, but not by directly competing in YouTube's current niche. Think Amazon vs Bookstore.

Right now YouTube has a hold on a large variety of internet video purposes. Tutorials, documentaries, education, entertainment, etc.. 

I think if there was a different option, say for TechQuickie style videos that made finding specific guides more accessible than YouTube, it could experience growth and eventually compete.

Otherwise I think companies like Netflix are expanding there horizons to try to find a profit and will probably start hosting a wider variety of content that could eventually compete with youtube since everyone already has a Netflix subscription.

 

just spitballing 

 

[Guest]

A competitor in what way?

In terms of payments to creators?

In terms of the type of videos available?

In terms of accessibility?

 

Seeing as there are other platforms available today, what would make them "real viable" competitors?

[KingTdiGGiTTy]

5 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

In terms of payments to creators?

I know it's not nice to think about; but the broad userbase of internet video users don't and/or will not care about fair compensation.

Piracy is popular for a reason. For now YouTube is mostly immune to it.

IDK if this is still a hot take, but I don't think using an adblocker is Piracy. Are you gonna force me to look at an ad? So that it has verified monetary value? maybe a bad argument. but I digress.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, KingTdiGGiTTy said:

I know it's not nice to think about; but the broad userbase of internet video users don't and/or will not care about fair compensation.

The users follow the creators, so if a platform wants to compete with youtube, it would need to give the creators a reason to, either, post their videos on their platform along with youtube, or outright move to their platform.

[KingTdiGGiTTy]

6 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

The users follow the creators, so if a platform wants to compete with youtube, it would need to give the creators a reason to, either, post their videos on their platform along with youtube, or outright move to their platform.

Users don't necessarily follow creators. That only holds true for a relatively small sector of the broader use of YouTube. 

For example, as a student if I want to watch a video about a particular concept (which would happen frequently for many students) I don't care who makes the video, or what or if they're getting paid. 

In other examples it could be anything where your primary goal can be achieved easily without consideration of the creator.

[Jtalk4456]

9 minutes ago, KingTdiGGiTTy said:

I know it's not nice to think about; but the broad userbase of internet video users don't and/or will not care about fair compensation.

Piracy is popular for a reason. For now YouTube is mostly immune to it.

IDK if this is still a hot take, but I don't think using an adblocker is Piracy. Are you gonna force me to look at an ad? So that it has verified monetary value? maybe a bad argument. but I digress.

I think as a legal definition of piracy it's shaky at best, but in concept, I'd say an ad blocker is stealing. The creator has chosen to make their content on X platform agreeing that ad views will provide revenue instead of directly charging for their content like buying a DVD or a streaming license. In that sense using an adblocker is working your way around the platforms rules to access the content without paying. No one is FORCING you to watch an ad, because no one is FORCING you to watch the content. If I turn on my cable tv and turn to a channel with commercials going, I'm not being forced to watch the commercials. I'm choosing to watch the commercials to help pay for the content that channel has to offer. Using an adblocker IS an issue for the creators whether you want to use the word piracy or not. I would agree with you that many users will not CARE enough about fair compensation. But I think as you implied with the use of the word FAIR, I think it's important whether people care or not. It's FAIR as you said. 

40 minutes ago, Indian pc builder said:

In the world we have with its skyrocketing bandwidth costs, is it even possible for a real viable competitor for YouTube to ever exist?

I don't know enough about web development and platform creation to know if bandwidth costs will be an issue or not, but I don't think it's THE issue. When you think back to most social medial platforms that have failed or lessened in popularity, most have been very single purpose. Myspace could technically do lots of stuff, but it was mainly used for teenage girls and annoying autoplaying music. Facebook is used for many things from business to personal to porn to family to marketplace. It's everything for social media and so it has a serious hold on market share because it's easier for most people to have one login and do all social media there than to have a few different sites they login to for different purposes. Do it all sites are much better at retaining users. Youtube seems just a video site, but it's more than that. It's short form content like tiktok and vine, it's documentaries, it's gaming (including live like twitch), it's cooking and life hacks and comedy and it's full length movies to rent like amazon prime. It even has community engagement with picture and text posts, so it's not just video either. They hold a lot of market share because they have so many markets covered. Any new company will have a hard time competing with such an expansive platform