[corobo]

YouTube started without advertising revenue too.

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

[SerLava]

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.

[theDoug]

Definitely agree on the technical front.

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)

[SerLava]

Yeah I agree with you there too. The ripped TV played a huge part.

[pbhjpbhj]

Ripped TV still constitutes a significant amount of content.

[corobo]

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