Why hasn't any credible competitor come to YouTube yet,

>DailyMotion doesn't have the same quantity of content creators
Because it has no audience, because there is no content.

Such cases.

Vimeo was always better for artsy videos.
Also the entire thing turned to shit about 5 years ago, maybe more.

vid.me

Vid.me seems to run great on desktop and mobile for me. They have a bunch of the politicos or skeptics on there already too. Hoping to see more switch. Bitchute seems like a cool idea. Not a fan of their website though.

YT is great for hosting videos for your friends or a few thousand subs. Anything more than that and you just have to limit yourself not spewing /pol/-level stuff all the time. It is also easier for you to grow and get noticed.

>>62297878
go ask Kim Dotcom, see how well it worked out for him

>>62298127
Nah you can't even say anything remotely negative or title it in that way. That's for non political too. If you're right leaning or center in anyway you're already blacklisted.

File: someordinarygamers_025452.png (728KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 1280x738px

>>62297878
I have very small hope for vidme. You can get tips like twitch for the knee bending sluts that is on youtube.
>>62297960
Because most of the youtube creators are goyim and are willing to stay in that cesspool and still suck the std ridden corkscrew duck dick that youtube has.

>>62297878

They have the most content and there's no reason to use anything else for 99% of the people.

Cause video hosting is extremely expensive.

>>62297878
lul why the hell is everybody so triggered by this, google are trying to turn their users into decent human beings by taking away their pennies from ad revenue when they act like retarded cunts, doing us a fucking service

>>62298917
because thats where it starts.
>we are just removing the rotten eggs from the community
a fews years later they are censoring anyone and everyone that they simply disagree with and abusing their power

nicovideo for weeb contents.

>>62297878
because i dont give a fuck about millionare youtubers crying that they only make 199 999$ instead of 200 000$, youtube should not pay the creators

>>62297878
Because Youtube is too big to compete against now

Nico nico douga

>>62297878
because running video hosting isnt only expensive its hardly profitable
last time i heard youtube runs at a loss

Why did YouTube even start paying these "content creators" in the first place? They're hosting their videos for free, and yet they demand money for it.

>>62298179
>If you're right leaning or center in anyway you're already blacklisted.

That's blatantly false, louis rossman is pretty popular and he's right leaning, the difference between him and all those edgy fags is that he understands the nuance of voicing your opinions when they get remotely controversial, not in a jew this and degeneracy that. Youtube comments with anime avatars don't really help that either.

>>62299578
for more content to be created, dumbass

vid.me is the only one that isn't schizo-nazi cancer. it's ok and pretty fast

>>62299594
But YouTube is supposedly not making profit, so it doesn't make sense to split the ad revenue with anyone.

>>62299615
wait wtf why is there so many germans lmao

File: v5_KHxON.jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

niconico would be a good alternative if the backend wasn't so shit.

You have to pay premium to get the decent quality and speeds but it might be worth it since jewtube has gone full thought police.

maybe even beg Hiroyuki to create a new type of board, something like /wsg/ + /soc/ combined and only allow comments on OP's video.

>>62297878
There are already a few sites that could replace youtube. But the problem of replacing youtube isn't youtube itself, but rather the content creators and their audience.

You see, content creators want as many views as they can get. They want to reach out to the largest audience possible. Youtube provides the largest audience because it's what people use, and in turn that's also what keeps new content creators turning towards Youtube instead of other sites.

A new alternative to Youtube could provide a much better service, but it will never be able to take over because it doesn't have the established userbase that content creators are looking for. It's the same case with Twitch and Hitbox (now Smashcast); Hitbox provides a better service for streamers and viewers alike, but Twitch has an established userbase so Twitch remains king.
It's not just extremely difficult to another site to compete in a market like this, it's impossible.

>>62299108
>a fews years later they are censoring anyone and everyone that they simply disagree with and abusing their power
>a few years
They already are, I've seen some absurd shit.

>>62298917
>google are trying to turn their users into decent human beings
>Google are trying
Since when is YouTube is my mom?, I should be able to watch whatever I want,Fuck off
>taking away their pennies from ad revenue when they act like retarded cunts
So basically if you don't do what we consider view friendly, You'll have all your content demonetized,Except all these rap videos, Pranks and vlogs which have way more toxic shit, They're okay
>doing us a fucking service
Until you watch rewind 2016 and realize the lowest common denominator inoffensive bullshit content YouTube values

>>62298917
Ok google.

>>62299537
one could have said that about Yahoo at one point.

File: 1503797239835.png (805KB, 801x936px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 801x936px

>>62298917
Your time is coming.

>>62300196
True. I can't remember how Google overtook Yahoo though. Yahoo is still my main for my emails. Guess gmail was the new hip thing and Yahoo's startpage got kinda shitty?

It costs too much to run and doesn't turn a profit. Only companies/people who are ok with throwing millions of dollars down the drain every month can run something as big as YouTube.

>>62300280
doesn't explain why they decided to become political and censor-happy, it's not making them more money than if they stayed apolitical.

>>62299704
HHAHAAHAH. Niconico is so shit. Like I dont understand who this service is still alive in 2017

>>62300280
This made me think of Notch instantly. Imagine how much he could do if he wasn't such a whiny bitch

File: 21-3-1.jpg (28KB, 660x466px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 660x466px

>>62299625
>YouTube is not making profit
what the fuck are you talking about

the change will only happen if the creators take charge and lead their audience. At the end of the day that's what everyone is there for after all

File: 1481852541874.png (18KB, 863x205px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 863x205px

>>62297878
>Why hasn't any credible competitor come to YouTube yet
Evil Google is sabotaging them by denying them SEO traffic.

It's here. You just have to use it.

Minds.com

Problem is, regardless of how good a rival platform is, it can't compete with the big ones unless large names start using it like by some miracle PewDiePie just suddenly jumped ship off of YouTube.

Hence, we're doomed. Inverse totalitarianism is pretty much just a fact of life now.

Conform or be vaporized.

>>62298179
>muh libcuck kikes are censoring me!!!!
Every time

>>62297970
Vimeo is for faggots
>>62298117
>They have a bunch of the politicos
And thats why vid.me will never be good, it will always be seen as a refuge

File: 215_590cf130c2783.jpg (261KB, 900x1280px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 900x1280px

>>62297960

Dailymotion was aimed to european filmmakers with fantastical shorts, now is another video site with arrows and circles in thumbnails

>>62297878
Try getting a life. Then Youtube will seem quite fine.

>>62298179
>If you're right leaning or center in anyway you're already blacklisted.
Was gonna post a link to disprove you, then when I viewed the channel all was fucking gone.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjqVanJab9rt5BBBK0iEfyw/videos

>>62298080
>>62298117
>>62299615
vid.me makes you get verified unless you don't want no uploading 1080p videos, a video duration cap or not having the ability to delete comments.

>>62297878
vid.me (already shit)
dtube.video
bitchute.com

>>62301641
>raging /pol/tard
>"center or right leaning"

>>62298917
Because they're suppressing any speech that contradicts their toxic "progressive' agenda.

It would be possible. But we'd need capital and knowledge. Some really rich persons funding this. Providing the servers, creating REALLY good software, layout and UI, make it not needing data-mining, buying the biggest and most important Youtubers like PewDiePie, making advertisement everywhere. Simply make it better, which should be easy with enough money and aggressiveness.
Someone call KimDotCom and some rich people who hate Google.

>>62301747
>it's okay because it's not my views they are silencing

>>62301806
It's ok because it's silencing those who would silence all others.

>>62301565
it used to be good for niche porn but they purged it sadly

>>62301803
Trump could do it.

Imagine, Trumptube. A great big firewall will be erected and libcucks, niggers, and spics will all be banned. I can taste they're tears.

>>62301849
so only /g/ uses it with their ad blockers. Sound business strategy you got there

>>62301847
"[Silencing others] is ok because it's silencing those who would silence all others."
Riiiight.

>>62301896
Intolerance of intolerance is not a contradiction.

>>62301907
I am intolerant to your intolerance of intolerance.
What now, biggot?

>>62302009
Duh, you're a bigot. We already established that.
And you're an idiot who can't spell, which is normal for the right.

poltards seem to want a youtube clone without it actually being called youtube and thats just not going to happen. they want content creators to move to other sites but how do they incentivize them to do so? either they dont and just continue complaining or they scream about how google is evil. have you faggots even tried contacting youtube creators and asking them to also upload a mirror to site x. or even move to patreon and that way they still make money. even literal retards no that its "career" suicide to ditch google. and even if you guys did go this route then you would go after only the big youtubers and not the small or mildly succesful ones.
inb4 thats going to take forever. well thats what you are going to have to do to take down a giant. also as a steady amount of people migrate to site x then the site creators can appropriately adjust by hiring new members, getting new servers etc.
oh and even if all of this did work you would still need a way for site x to make money. would you watch ads? would you buy their merchandise? there is a huge overlap between people who like adnauseum and people who dont like youtube. but adnauseum doesnt only click google ads. those are the majority tho. but it fucks over the ad ecosystem. see where i'm going with this?

>>62302045
B I G G O T

>>62302130
Intolerance of intolerance is not a contradiction.

>>62302146
Yes it is.

>>62302156
Nope, since tolerance does not mean |tolerance|

> It's another "americans can't understand what free speech means" thread
I'm getting tired of these tbqh
Can we make a /burger/ and sent all americans there?

>>62302223
>it's only free speech when the government lets you
Anon, it doesn't matter why something is censored or by who. Censorship is bad.
That isn't so hard to understand, is it?

>>62301848
i noticed there used to be alot of size fetish stuff there, but now theres almost none so i moved to pornhub.

Because a handfull fo technocrats own control the best fiber and the best datacenters.

The internet has become a horrible machine, and Google is its belly.

>>62302288
It's called free market
If you think google is doing something illegal you're free to sue them and win billions of dollars and force them to not do it.

>>62302305
Why are you arguing against something I never said?
Did you reply to the wrong person?

>>62297878
>why is there no credible competitor for a business that literally only losses money in droves, and requires an enormous amount of hardware, and not to mention that noone can realistically get the normies to move away from something

>>62299578
because without them they would have random idiots uploading content that barely gets views costing them money and not earning them as much

>>62301282
read the title of that graph and you will realize that it has nothing to do with the profit that youtube makes
the profit is if you still have money after you take away the costs from the earnings

>>62302305
>It's called free market
good joke there is no such thing as a free market

>>62297878
>good content on the internet in 2017
Welcome to the future, anon

>>62299707
Exactly why google+ didn't take off

>>62299108
They already demonetize videos that criticizes youtube. So we're already headed in that direction.

>>62302517
Profit is somewhat irrelevant when you have the marketshare and the sort of inverstors that YouTube does. Same reason Tesla keeps growing even though it has crazy losses.

>>62302954
of course profit is irrelevant because that's not the reason google keeps a grip on it, i just wanted to make clear that they get no profit, since that poster didn't seem to understand what his graph meant

>>62302393
you can create a video sharing site similar to imageboards where after something loses interest it gets deleted and those who enjoyed the content can download it locally for themselves. Of course no one has the balls to try something like that

>>62300265
I think I read somewhere that Yahoo had the chance to buy Google some time in the late 90s but they decided not to. Kind of like how Blockbuster had a chance to buy Netflix before it got big.

The bigger flaw about YT is view counts are public and cant hide, the average people dont care about the number, except if are uploading by $$$$, this is why trending videos are of people making weird faces.

>>62303304
there are hundreds of file lockers that offer referrals and money for clicks. so money isn't why youtube is popular.

yt is popular because it was the first. making a yt killer isn't difficult, getting people to use it, and being able to afford the traffic is the thing.

File: Hans-Hoppe-ořez-e1494337275956.png (307KB, 630x422px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 630x422px

Lmao I've loved watching the decline of Youtube. It's a perfect example of what happens when you have a functional monopoly, and it explains why all corporations that go this route inevitably fail.
Youtube has no serious competitors that are capable of drawing away their revenue. Thus, they don't have to invest in their own infrastructure in order to remain competitive and keep their userbase. They can start abusing their own users in order to milk them for more money and get away with it. However, their power to do this is the very thing that will cause them to fail eventually. They will continue to move away from their userbase and will continue to increase their expropriation of the users. Eventually, the people's attachment to Youtube will break and they will move to other hosting services.
You're already seeing this beginning to happen in various political circles.

Google will be it's own undoing. The Iron Law of Oligarchies strikes again

>>62303508
Is this the same thing that happens with social networking sites like Myspace?

Y'all seem to underestimate just how much infrastructure is necessary to host a website like YouTube. And only Google can do it because only Google has the giant fucking infrastructure to handle the petabytes of data uploaded daily. Nevermind raw power required to transcode all those videos.

In short, unless someone feels like throwing billions of dollars into a money sink to (attempt) to dethrone YouTube, it's never gonna happen.

>>62300196
In a completely different era, when a lot less people had access to the web. "Big" then meant a lot less than it does now. Google and Youtube are institutions at this point. You'll never drag normies away from them.

>>62303527
I didn't follow MySpace's decline as closely as I have with YouTube. If I recall, they declined due to popular alternatives that came about due to MySpace's rampant popularity, and people recognized the better alternatives and moved to them. Just market forces acting, not monopolistic decline

>>62303508
>Lmao I've loved watching the decline of Youtube.
has youtube been losing marketshare or something that i'm not aware of? is it bleeding users? and youtube is a completely different beast compared to other websites or irl businesses. you are SEVERLY underestimating just how difficult it is to keep youtube running. Even if the biggest youtubers decided to move to other platforms those platforms cannot withstand that amount of traffic or storage.

>>62303605
Well YouTube itself only accounts for about 3% of Google's value. What I refer to as decline is what one would call the period prior to the fall of Rome. YouTube is entering a state of decline which is shown by them moving further and further left. Their censorship exploits are the canary in the coal mine.

>>62303605
This. Just take a single YouTuber: Casey Neistat. Average viewcount is about 2 million. He uploads at 4K30fps. Each video is about ~10 mins on average. YT's bitrate for 4K30fps is ~45mbps. So about 2.7GB of bandwidth for a single viewer.

At two million views PER VIDEO, that's 5.4 PETABYTES of bandwidth transferred. Obviously, not everyone watches in 4K but let's assume worse-case scenario.

And that's just a single video, by a single YouTuber. And although he publishes less often now, for a few years he was doing DAILY uploads of this shit. That's a metric fuckton of resources JUST FOR A SINGLE PERSON.

So, is YouTube a monopoly? Absolutely. But it's a Monopoly simply because no other company has the resources Google has to throw at this endeavor.

>>62303739
>Obviously, not everyone watches in 4K but let's assume worse-case scenario.
I think Google has enough brain matter and statistics to know what stuff they can get away with.

>>62303832
Sure, but the point still remains that Google needs enough resources to be able to push a fuckload of bandwidth every second of the day. And that costs a ridiculous amount of money that no one else is willing to upfront.

>>62303739
>no other company has the resources Google has to throw at this endeavor.
The government should force google to share their resources. It's not fair that they get the only good streaming site.

>>62303739
And that's why a much better system would be a decentralized video hosting system. One that spreads the bandwidth requirements over many competing websites. Rather than having a singular website that hosts all videos besides porn (and now politics), we'd have many websites that host various genres of video. There would be Lets Play websites, animal video websites, porno websites, etc. We already know how it would look thanks to YouTube not being a true monolith in the video hosting market. Those topics YouTube bans see this kind of decentralized market structure take form.

>>62303126
LMAO you just described SnapChat

>>62303937
No, and anyone that suggests such an idea should be shot.

>>62301747
Google is censoring leftists too even though the /pol/yps won't admit because it hurts their narrative.
>Beginning in April of this year, Google began manipulating search results to channel users away from socialist, left-wing, and anti-war publications, and directing them instead towards mainstream publications that directly express the views of the government and the corporate and media establishment (i.e., the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), and a small number of mildly left “trusted” websites whose critiques are deemed innocuous (i.e., Jacobin Magazine and the website of the Democratic Socialists of America, which functions as a faction of the Democratic Party
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/25/pers-a25.html

YouTube TV is based af.

It's literally how streamed television should work.

File: file.png (9KB, 659x172px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 659x172px

>>62304177
>the /pol/yps won't admit because it hurts their narrative.
Who are you quoting?
I've seen many times where "/pol/yps" say the left will eventually get censored. On /g/, even.
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/search/text/get%20the%20bullet%20too/

>>62304177
>/pol/yps
Fuck off back to leftypol

>>62302289
it had the rarest vids because dmca didn't exist or the companies didn't care.

I was to young to save everything and am looking for some stuff til today

>>62304233
They're calling Google "Goolag" and claiming they're censoring rightist and centrist but they're censoring everyone that doesn't support safe liberal trash.
>>62304469
Leftypol is filled with redditers and sjws. The mods have also become censorship happy pricks that ban any nationalists. It's as mind numbing is regular /pol/ at this point.

>>62302170
Intolerance is intolerance.

>>62300447
Google sinks money into it even though it will never turn a profit because the benefits of owning one of the major centralised platforms for content sharing on the internet far outweighs the negatives of losing some money, which Google is easily capable of covering. If they control the medium through which content is shared, they can control the content.

File: 1494315032672.jpg (82KB, 620x840px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 620x840px

>>62299530
It is stupid when huge youtubers complain about "only" making $5000 per video, but some legitimate people (like me) actually do try to make a living on YouTube. They're making it harder and harder for small guys like us.

>>62299578
Because if people didn't get paid for the content, you wouldn't have huge entertainers like Pewdiepie bring in literally millions of followers. No money -> no content -> no website.

>>62299707
>but rather the content creators and their audience.
This is a big part, but the other is that affiliate programs and other revenue streams are very picky when it comes to where you can put your links. Amazon will just outright ban you if you put the links anywhere other than your own website or, and this is literally the only exception, on YouTube.

>>62304782
>some legitimate people (like me) actually do try to make a living on YouTube
lol why? also post your shit channel so i can laugh

File: waE6jLFa.jpg (263KB, 1825x1825px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1825x1825px

>>62304890
>lol why?
Because I literally wouldn't be able to survive in my local job market. More than that, I actually love producing videos, testing products, and teaching. Here's a cooler review if you want to laugh: https://youtu.be/3Tl1HphYv9A

>>62300208
OK THERE I INSTALLED IT NOW LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE

>>62297878
Because it's a terrible business and even the best at it can barely make enough money to pay the servers and bandwidth

>>62304942
damn anon your rich

File: 1489529169476.jpg (3KB, 204x204px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 204x204px

>>62305560
Ha, I wish.

Actually what I wish is that I could get the same support from manufacturers that the huge youtubers get. Half of them just end up breaking their review samples instead of actually reviewing and benchmarking them. Frustrates me to no end.

>>62304942
That's a pretty nice video, anon. You should work on your script reading though, you sound kind of monotone.

>>62306756
Thanks! And thanks for the feedback anon. Believe me I've been working on it, slowly but surely.