Does Youtube actually loose money?

>or is this just a tax avoidance scam from Alphabet?

You mean, do they do some "Hollywood accounting"? If that is what they get most out of, yes...

>>61824978
It's just another way to funnel money around and avoid taxes. You'll be seeing more of that soon, now that the ol' double Irish has been plugged effective 2018 or whenever.

>>61825014
>>61825016
I have not looked at the financials bust considering the huge amount of cash flow that Youtube brings in, it is hard to imagine that the company is not profitable. Dose Alphabet offer hosting services to the general public like AWS? It would be interesting to compare what the charge to outsiders vs the prices Youtube pays. Would it be better for me to ask about this on /biz/?

It was for a long time but not anymore.

>>61824978
Google is a public company, we know YouTube is still not profitable, they themselves said it.

They also have no plans to make themselves profitable in the short term.

It's not tax avoidance scam, there are easier and totally legit ways of avoiding taxes. It's not like Google uses Youtube to launder money.

Youtube is a weird one, they have virtually no competition with their service. But their operative costs are so insanely high that they just can't turn positive.

>>61826240
>operative costs are so insanely high that they just can't turn positive.
which doesn't matter at all because they still data mine you for free as long as they it pays itself for the upkeep
>stupid thread

>>61824978
>loose
IQ=2

>>61824978

Not only do they have insane hosting costs, but then they also pay out millions of dollars to all the e-celebs.

wtf

>>61825016
>>61825014
YouTube is run at a loss - the rate of return of the popular videos (that are usually 1080p) pays for the unpopular 4K60 videos but it's not by much. Hollywood according very much falls into play here. Their YouTube Red (ad-free) service is the stick, not the bait. The exclusive 4K professional Red content is not viewed enough, often times, to justify whatever cost they paid producing or purchasing the series.

>>61826240
>It's not like Google uses Youtube to launder money

Also false. Their Content ID is de-facto licensing of the millions of videos that copyright infringe on films, TV shows, and music. What, you never heard how pissed the RIAA/MPAA lobby is that they don't get paid enough? Such is life when you operate a free service.

>>61827853
The talent gets 55%, YouTube keeps 45%. Then, if they are in a network, it's divided further from your 55%

>>61825114
>how to be wrong

--
t. have a youtube account with several terabytes (according to Google Takeout) worth of video on it, less than 1k subscribers

>>61828023
>The exclusive 4K professional Red content is not viewed enough, often times, to justify whatever cost they paid producing or purchasing the series.

It's also completely unavailable for anyone except Americans (who is a small percentage of it's users). Why they block international users from it, I do not know (it makes as much sense as those who block their videos to certain countries). But likely a big reason why it does not work well.