so we already know that youtube doesn’t like people freeloading their bandwidth using something like invidious, piped, newpipe etc. why don’t they just close the public web api and require a login or something. by requiring login they can keep track of what users are watching and if a user is watching thousands of videos daily they can rate limit that user.
are they afraid of losing their user if they do so? I personally don’t think it can affect their business or profit. It will cut down their cost of bandwidth and computation costs. so why don’t just cut off users that don’t bring any revenue??
Meta made a twitter clone when they had the chance, they’ll happily make a YouTube clone.
I don’t think Amazon or Microsoft are very interested in entering that market, but they are the only ones with the money and compute to support such a platform.
Maybe Netflix could be interested? But I doubt it
People have seriously suggested that Mindgeek (Pornhub) could do it. Video content delivery infrastructure is eye-wateringly expensive but Mindgeek’s systems already deliver petabytes of content a day.
This was memed a lot but if they seriously get involved then I think there’s a good chance that their competitor would genuinely be successful as long as they can correctly distance themselves from the pornography aspect of their business.
Edit: They also own algorithms to find and recommend videos to users, robust commenting and user interaction features on their platform, and the placement and frequency of advertising are more or less acceptable on their platform.
Funnily enough Pornhub became kinda shit these last few years. Not because of overbearing advertising but because they periodically delete large amounts of their content, I think to appease payment providers. Kinda like the dmca takedowns on YouTube but much worse.
Yeah, but I don’t fault them too much for that. They did have a revenge porn problem on their site. At the same time, they did not really have much of a choice either if they wanted to stay in business.
This is just an indictment of the power payment providers have over our everyday lives, if nothing else. It highlights a need for neutral and accessible digital currency. This doesn’t necessarily refer to cryptocurrency either. Central banks around the world have the power to create content-neutral digital payment networks.
No, even if they wanted to, they have no expertise in UGC and they don’t have the infrastructure to do any of that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickTime?wprov=sfla1
Quicktime was awesome. They could revisit what worked well about it.
They have deep deep pockets and could throw money at it if they wanted to be come after the market.
They already have a zealous fanbase that will ignore flaws.
I think they could do it, if they wanted to. Would take time and they would have to bleed money for a while, anyone who tries to take on youtube would have to though
