Why don’t you make an alternative without ads or subscriptions? I’d love to use a video platform as big as youtube without having to pay with money or my attention.
Quick question, how were you planning to cover costs?
Aaah! So you weren’t around when YouTube was add-free for over a decade.
EDIT: it’s amazing how many people flock to defend the monetizing of YouTube and how they run their shit, yet so many people whine about how they monetized.
Actually that’s a quite typical time for tech start-up to break even. The whole time they’re funded by business angels.
But for some cases, the loss can be considerable, and still the “start-up” keeps finding investors. Ex: Uber, lost 30 G$ on over 14years before turning around. Or just look at all the AI pure-players companies right now.
Yes, that’s quite typical, if you manage to find a rich investor. But that only happens if you have a way to eventually make a profit. If you say from the start you’re never going to have ads or subscriptions so you’re never going to make money with this, you’re not going to find an investor.
YouTube started with a lot of angel funding, which is why it eventually monetized in the way that it has
YouTube began as an angel-funded enterprise working from a makeshift office in a garage. In November 2005, venture firm Sequoia Capital invested an initial $3.5 million,[20] and Roelof Botha (a partner of the firm and former CFO of PayPal) joined the YouTube board of directors. In April 2006, Sequoia and Artis Capital Management invested an additional $8 million in the company, which had experienced significant growth in its first few months.
Why don’t you make an alternative without ads or subscriptions? I’d love to use a video platform as big as youtube without having to pay with money or my attention.
Quick question, how were you planning to cover costs?
Aaah! So you weren’t around when YouTube was add-free for over a decade.
EDIT: it’s amazing how many people flock to defend the monetizing of YouTube and how they run their shit, yet so many people whine about how they monetized.
I wonder if they’re the same people.
Over a decade of running at a loss. That is only possible for companies, like Google, that are already very rich.
Actually that’s a quite typical time for tech start-up to break even. The whole time they’re funded by business angels.
But for some cases, the loss can be considerable, and still the “start-up” keeps finding investors. Ex: Uber, lost 30 G$ on over 14years before turning around. Or just look at all the AI pure-players companies right now.
Yes, that’s quite typical, if you manage to find a rich investor. But that only happens if you have a way to eventually make a profit. If you say from the start you’re never going to have ads or subscriptions so you’re never going to make money with this, you’re not going to find an investor.
It ran at a financial loss every year until more recently.
YouTube started with a lot of angel funding, which is why it eventually monetized in the way that it has
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube
Costs that they’re now paying for with ads and subscriptions. So I’ll ask again. What would you do differently?