![]() Trying to find a music video, watching sports highlights, videos from your favourite creators. The reality is, most of their customers aren't going anywhere. I agree they don't have a perfect monopoly either. You're totally right, they want more money. You also can't put custom thumbnails on your videos which makes it harder for your content to get attention. They've also made it harder to be monetised on the platform generally, IIRC you can't be monetised at all and cannot receive super chats if you have less than 1000 subscribers. So I don't see anything political about it. In addition to that the people that have been demonetised have ranged from progressives, anarcho-communists, people doing ben-shapiro compilation videos and edgy boys and girls that tend to shitpost. It gave youtube an excuse to stop paying people without outright removing them from the platform which saves them a fair bit of money and doesn't quite bring the same outrage from the respective fanbases as outright removing people. Some claim it is "political" however I believe it is simpler than that. This of course ignored that Google does targeted advertising. Several rounds of this eventually brought about a TOS change where they could deem you "not advertiser friendly". There has been several moral panics incited by the conventional media (TV, newspapers etc) about adverts being displayed alongside edgy content a while back. They have already had "not advertiser friendly" caveat which is a way of just disqualifying anyone they like. What you want is a VPS and a CDN which provides a better experience and what every streaming platform uses. If they do it all themselves then it becomes much more expensive for the upfront costs. If they do the reseller affiliate program they cant really offer anything outside of theie markups on the existing offerings by the datacenter. So you go for a reseller which there are many stellar ones but they'll either utilize a program with the datacenter akin to an reseller affiliate program with them being the 3rd party support or do it all themselves. This will vary of course because short of being a hosting or tech company of size its not worth the cost, paperwork, biometrics, and time it takes. After that your bill would skyrocket to >$1000 in the increased networking fees and you dont even want to know how much unmetered 1+Gbps will get you. 20 TB as some of the biggest caps then your bill is nearly doubled for 20 more. ![]() I've got experience for US hosting and they dont have great package prices like you're describing after the initial cap ime. Enjoy it while it lasts, but you know also have a Vimeo account ready to go as well or something like that. Literally free content hosting is obviously not a thing that will exist for very long. It's shitty that Google didn't give a heads up, but anyone whose business is riding on this should definitely have been expecting something like this and had a backup plan. Hoping nothing changes about your little ad-free corner of that platform is not a sound business plan. YouTube has very obviously been an ad-supported video platform for at least a decade. > But at the same time, there are people who have so heavily invested into the YouTube ecosystem with certain expectations for a very long time, and pretty much have their entire business on there, so they can't very easily take their business elsewhere if they're unhappy with the change.Ī key part of running a business is risk management & mitigation. Creators went for direct monetization outside of youtube instead of ads, and youtube responded by keeping their net income the same by just showing ads anyway. This sounds like a pretty straightforward cause & effect here. So in that respect, it's kind of a shitty move by Google. It would be a massive undertaking to shift their backlog of videos onto another service, and they'd lose all their existing subscribers and have to build it up elsewhere. This isn't a 'Netflix raising their subscription cost' scenario, where users can just cancel their subscription and sign up for a different service. They don't really have such a way to opt out of pretty much any other service of theirs that has monetization.īut at the same time, there are people who have so heavily invested into the YouTube ecosystem with certain expectations for a very long time, and pretty much have their entire business on there, so they can't very easily take their business elsewhere if they're unhappy with the change. I somewhat understand Google's stance on this, as it's a service that should be allowed to make money even on people who don't want to make money. I know there are several content creators (such as Jim Sterling) that have their videos ad-free as a perk for their supporters (since he's supported enough via Patreon).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |