Many don't primarily rely on YouTube advertising revenue (especially since YT has become fairly aggressive in excluding videos from monetization anyways). Sponsored content, in-video advertising, Patreon etc. all are revenue sources that don't rely on the platform providing advertising.
I thought the majority of the complains on Youtube were more about demonetization rather than content removal. PeerTube is solving the latter, but that doesn't help most people who are upset that they are making less money since the adpocalypse.
True, but if YT doesn't provide reliable ad revenue there's less reason to only put your content on YouTube. And with general unhappiness with the platform comes a desire for having at least a backup plan, so why not start posting in multiple locations now?
If by "backup plan", you mean your videos being accessible, sure. But usually, when people talk about diversifying, they are talking about revenue. In this case, PeerTube isn't really bringing revenue so I'm not sure it helps much. What would help is getting a Patreon or streaming on Twitch. Those are different sources of income, PeerTube isn't really unless you get hit like Blender did.
Blender receives millions of dollars in donation and OCW is backed my MIT which gets billions of dollars in revenue. How is that comparable to starting creators who want to build a career? Also Blender and OCW don't need peertube as their content is very unlikely to get censored on youtube.
I understand that doesn't help current creators but the problem YouTube competitors have right now seems to be a cycle of trying to match features, run out of money, shut down
My theory is any site with a chance of toppling YouTube needs to avoid trying to topple YouTube directly and rather recreate its rise to the top
I still hold the opinion that YouTube didn't win because of the social features we think of now - it won because in 2005, it was the only video player that always did something when you hit the Play button. That was it.
Vimeo was around first and focused on 1080/HD content, and had actual enforcement of community guidelines that accounts should only be uploading content they made or took part in. YouTube (pre-Google) was gaining massive popularity with South Park and other TV content chopped into 12 minute segments to get past then-current restrictions for length. Vimeo was a better experience for community, but YouTube was a better experience for audience desires.
(I work for Google Cloud but opinions are sure my own)
Yes and what I mean was that the next one to have any chance of winning will be the one that stops trying to win. YouTube already exists and has features a startup can't compete with.
It's like trying to compete with Amazon on price and delivery speed, you're going to run out of money before you make a dent.
Look at Twitch for example, it's keeping its head in the game by starting out so different YouTube is now trying to keep up with it