you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

Well, if you don't mind losing all online content that's more than a couple mb in size then sure, what you're saying makes sense... Safely hosting over 1 billion videos costs money and people don't want to pay for it directly so...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Tens of millions of people can and do pay. This isn't about covering costs, this is about making line go up faster than last year, every year, no matter what.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    And there's even more people that don't...

    80m premium subscribers, 2.7b monthly users... Do you really think that's sustainable without having a secondary source of revenue? Because I don't know that many businesses that survive from 3% paying customers...

    That's just for YouTube, but there are other websites that host content that wouldn't be sustainable without ads and that would need to switch to a paid subscription format.

    Is it so hard to admit that there's something unusual about expecting websites to run out of the pocket of the owners/employees when we don't expect real world businesses to do so?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Do you really think that’s sustainable

    At $15 a month? Yeah totally. The vast majority of that 2.7 billion probably cost a few cents at most to offer service to. Very few people actually upload anything and streaming video is way cheaper than the various streaming services would have you believe. It's expensive to get off the ground, sure, but it scales well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment