How much money and staff would it take to launch an alternative

One Terry-tier person and enough money to run the site.

>>57914326
>and enough money to run the site.
and how much is enough exactly

>>57914321
A ridiculous amount, and you would be constantly be bleeding money.
I'm pretty sure youtube is not profitable at all.

Nothing is impossible anon

>>57914344
Fuck off Shia Labeouf, i set realistic goals

For every pewdiepie there must be a million 12 year olds uploading minecraft videos and taking up server space

>>57914374
Thanks for reminding me that my cringetastic Runescape videos from 2007 are still on Youtube with no way for me to delete them

>>57914331
depends on how many users you have. If you rely on cloud services like AWS then no money up front but the bill rises with use. It's good enough for Netflix

>>57914382
link please

>>57914321
A hundred trillion dollars and 3 guys.

I'd like to chime in as someone who used to make their money off YT. The server hosting bleeds money out the ass, it's not profitable at all, but since Google owns it they can have some homeostasis and hold a monopoly on the streaming video market. If you want the platform to be profitable you'd have to increase advertising revenues while balancing the greedy jewtube kikes.

>>57914333
>I'm pretty sure youtube is not profitable at all.

By itself no, it probably isn't. But for Google the additional data collection is worth the cost.

>>57914374
Server space is cheap, bandwidth is not.

Why would you throw money down the drain? You have to wait for YouTube to fuck up royally and lose a bunch of its users before you release an alternative. Most of the value of YouTube is the fact that everyone uses it.

Just make a peer to peer streaming software.

Youd have to start from nothing and grow natrually over years.

A trillion dollar marketing campaign, A ad on every bus and billboard in country will not steal 5% of youtubes viewers when it has decades of content already Id fucking love potentially that Ive never even heard of.

I dont think anyone could ever catch up there then perhaps a giant social media company like facebook if they went full boar and tried to push it really hard on all their users.

But they already have a billion user head start over you.

>>57914374
If you limited these videos being uploaded. The site would never have taken off in the first place.
IF you allow this low quality content then you have to deal with the prohibitively high costs of doing as such.

Google will never be dethroned I feel.
Unless hosting cost comes down by a factor of 10.

>>57915982
This desu, Only hope for creating something that rivals a company like youtube and can be an efficient means of video distribution that also minimizes costs. Good luck out riveling youtube, the only reason youtube is as big as it is simply because of how big the community that supports it is. Think apple fanboys but for video streaming.

You would need way too much money to compete with YouTube. And even if you are a rich prince from Dubai that has times on their hands, YouTube has such a hold on a the community that it'd be impossible to drive a profit.

I feel like the only way to compete with YouTube would be by creating small, niche video sites to attract an audience. Think of how twitch attracts game streamers or liveleak attracts people looking for fucked shit. Your website needs a reason for people to go to it.