So did Vimeo and dozens of others. YouTube did not get where it is by being better. Or by even being a platform. It got where it is by being bought out by a large corporate entity with near endless sums of money to back it with over the competition.
And a decade or two from now the internet is liable to be as different again from today as today was from them. And many people will be wondering Google who? Because ultimately people will remember the content not the platform.
Yes, but the backing by Google turned it into a viable career path for many creators. Name a single creator who posts to vimeo as their full time job. I’m not saying that youtube’s rise in popularity was necessarily good or ethical, I’m just saying that it is objectively better for creators over the other options.
You’ve basically said the same thing over and over about four or five times now. And been shut down on the facts of it every single time. Aren’t you getting a little tired of that?
Publishing has existed long before Google and alphabet. And it will exist long after they’re gone. Creators don’t really owe them all that much to be honest. And yes Vimeo or other competitors could have just as easily been the ones to do what YouTube did. Because YouTube didn’t do anything. It was the leveraging of Google’s near Monopoly on search and advertisement that allowed them to guide everyone to YouTube once they owned it. Making it viable and profitable for them to share some of those profits no matter how small with the people who post. People made a living making videos long before YouTube.
You’ve basically said the same thing over and over about four or five times now. And been shut down on the facts of it every single time. Aren’t you getting a little tired of that?
Yes, I am getting tired. You consistently argue against the pretty inoffensive and commonly understood arguments I have made with completely irrelevant points. So I’ll say it one more time and see if it can finally sink in. If someone wants to get into making videos, they’ll go to youtube for better or for worse. I’m not arguing about the pros and cons of Google’s influence, I’m saying that the reality is that youtube has enabled a huge amount of people to monetize their video creation and build an audience in a way that other competitors haven’t caught up with. If you’re arguing that the landscape for video creation and publishing on the internet is the same as it was before youtube rose to prevalence, then you’re just dead wrong. Sorry.
Also, you do understand that youtube was more successful than vimeo before google’s acquisition, right? Their success is kind of the whole reason google backed them.
So did Vimeo and dozens of others. YouTube did not get where it is by being better. Or by even being a platform. It got where it is by being bought out by a large corporate entity with near endless sums of money to back it with over the competition.
And a decade or two from now the internet is liable to be as different again from today as today was from them. And many people will be wondering Google who? Because ultimately people will remember the content not the platform.
Yes, but the backing by Google turned it into a viable career path for many creators. Name a single creator who posts to vimeo as their full time job. I’m not saying that youtube’s rise in popularity was necessarily good or ethical, I’m just saying that it is objectively better for creators over the other options.
You’ve basically said the same thing over and over about four or five times now. And been shut down on the facts of it every single time. Aren’t you getting a little tired of that?
Publishing has existed long before Google and alphabet. And it will exist long after they’re gone. Creators don’t really owe them all that much to be honest. And yes Vimeo or other competitors could have just as easily been the ones to do what YouTube did. Because YouTube didn’t do anything. It was the leveraging of Google’s near Monopoly on search and advertisement that allowed them to guide everyone to YouTube once they owned it. Making it viable and profitable for them to share some of those profits no matter how small with the people who post. People made a living making videos long before YouTube.
Yes, I am getting tired. You consistently argue against the pretty inoffensive and commonly understood arguments I have made with completely irrelevant points. So I’ll say it one more time and see if it can finally sink in. If someone wants to get into making videos, they’ll go to youtube for better or for worse. I’m not arguing about the pros and cons of Google’s influence, I’m saying that the reality is that youtube has enabled a huge amount of people to monetize their video creation and build an audience in a way that other competitors haven’t caught up with. If you’re arguing that the landscape for video creation and publishing on the internet is the same as it was before youtube rose to prevalence, then you’re just dead wrong. Sorry.
Also, you do understand that youtube was more successful than vimeo before google’s acquisition, right? Their success is kind of the whole reason google backed them.