[um_ya]

With all the complaints against Youtube, I don't know how they can still be so out of touch with everyone.

It's almost as if they're doing it deliberately. They're begging for competition to take over their unprofitable business. Nobody wants to step up.

[pjc50]

It's a two sided market; the player with the largest catalog wins. Youtube has also negotiated the copyright minefield extremely well - starting a competitor would have to deal with takedowns.

[dmix]

A competitor who finds a way to deal with copyright better, has a sane advertising policy that doesn't randomly demonetizes people, with a patreon system built in, and has a modern UI (YouTube has a lot of room for improvement) it could possibly compete with YouTube.

A whole lot of major YouTube channels who are constantly attacked by false copyright claims or have to push product placements due to no ads would love to push users to a better platform. So marketing wouldn't be impossible.

They could also push privacy and fine tuned data controls which helps with kids.

There's enough of a market for two to exist.

Maybe with some type of semi decentralized platform approach so individual hosts who deal with copyright poorly can take the hit, making the system more resilient. Chrome style apps and mobile clients could be the interface and the ad/patreon system is controlled by the primary software developer but the rest is an open protocol with a linear license for non commercial stuff (at least non commercial as far as not competing with the monetization platform). The network effects of managing the ad buyers, subscriber accounts with credit cards and one click subs could stave off the competition without fully controlling the full video network and hosts.

[wongarsu]

Sure, just build a video streaming website with good UI, a good recommendation/discovery algorithm, it's own avertising network (that is able to compete with YTs excellent personalized ads while having a more creator-friendly policy), spend more on human review of copyright claims than YT, establish a revenue share system for creators, as well as a system to pay monthly pledges similar to YT channel memberships or patreon (of course both need to comply with laws and regultions of all major countries), and have the budget to finance multiple months of video streaming and encoding servers.

There's space in the market, but I don't think anyone is willing to pay for that after so many others failed.

[nocturnial]

> Sure, just build a video streaming website with good UI, a good recommendation/discovery algorithm, it's own avertising network

I'm sorry to pick on you because I also disagree with the post you replied to.

In that list, didn't you forget to mention something very important that's at the heart of this discussion?

A competitor or even google should have all those things _plus_ it should be legal.

Currently, it isn't. Either change the law or change the business model, but don't implement a business model that breaks the law and hope it will turn out fine in the end.

You can't have every business breaking laws it disagrees with, not even if some or most people disagree with that law.

[dmix]

This is a perfect project for a successful entrepreneur who wants to solve a hard problem just like the Duckduckgo founder.

This is the type of hard problem I'm getting more and more interested in. Someone has to bring the future open and privacy oriented Web about some day. The current model is broken and the early Internet showed us what is possible. Web 2.0 brought none of the democratization it promised largely because of the old world model it attempted to deliver it with.

Plus none of the things you listed are hard. Technical problems are easy, it's the market and growth that's hard.

I'm personally focused on Reddit, mostly theoretically atm, but YouTube is something I've considered as well.

[Eli_P]

> Web 2.0 brought none of the democratization it promised

It introduced formula "If you're not paying for a product, you are the product", while in old world model delivery of value is more about givers/takers ratio.

[vkou]

Web 2.0 didn't invwnt anything. Plenty of pre-web services expect you to pay them, and also sell you. Cable TV, for instance.

[pjc50]

Well, there's at least two other competitors - Vimeo and Dailymotion - but neither has the fame or reach. And Peertube exists, but is comparatively tiny.

A big clue exists when we look at the most viewed (and presumably most lucrative) youtube videos. What do they all have in common? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_vi...

[vkou]

> A competitor who finds a way to deal with copyright better, has a sane advertising policy that doesn't randomly demonetizes people, with a patreon system built in, and has a modern UI (YouTube has a lot of room for improvement) it could possibly compete with YouTube.

A competitor that grows to the size of YouTube will face all the same pressures from publishers, legislators, advertisers, and malicious actors, and will almost certainly turn into something that looks a hell of a lot like YouTube does today.

Oh, and since it'll be advertising-supported (Nobody will want to pay $10/month for a significantly-worse to slightly-better YouTube alternative), it'll also be bending over backwards to make advertisers happy... Gosh, I wonder what the likely outcome of that is going to be.

Can you even imagine pitching this to a VC?

"We're going to build a YouTube alternative that doesn't suck, that will piss off major content owners[1], and will be a haven for bad actors. We're going to be amazing, give us money!"

[1] Who will sue us for every cent that we have ever, or will ever own.

[swiley]

Personally only some small fraction of the creators I watch on YouTube monetize their videos and all of them have another source of income in addition to that (paid promotions, merchandice, pattreon, concerts etc.)

I think everyone would be happy without the revenue sharing.

What we really need is a good video podcast viewer.

[vkou]

If you aren't expecting YouTube to pay you, the list of problems that content creators has with YouTube shrinks dramatically.

The remaining problems are largely due to copyright enforcement and abuse... Which don't just magically go away, just because you're not doing revenue sharing.

[swiley]

Most of the people I watch have complained about copyright strikes and having their channels completely deleted without explanation (extractions and ire is an example of that.) More than their fear of demonization (I’ve only seen one complain about that.)

Most professional youtubers don’t seem to trust YouTube’s revenue sharing so why bother with it?

[input_sh]

It's a chicken and egg problem: users won't switch platforms until their favorite creators switch over, and the creators won't switch over if nobody's there to watch their videos.

[dmix]

Well in any case it's pretty clear which one needs to come first, convince the creators and they'll push existing users to the new platform.

The chicken problem is more about the ad buyers and the users, not creators. The patreon system scales better this way but the ads are what holds most back.

I know quite a few YouTube channels who tried pushing one of those awful decentralized versions of YouTube that look like Chinese knockoffs when the either the demonetization and copyright stuff bit them hard and threatened (or simply ruined) years of their hard work, but there was never a proper alternative to offer. I'm sure they'd love a legitimate alternative designed by top tier designers and developers for once.

Otherwise the creators will have no financial incentive to route users to another platform. Which is a far higher problem than not having enough other people commenting on the same video as other users.

[gpm]

You don't have to convince creator's to switch, just to use your new platform as well. YouTube doesn't have an exclusive license on the content.

[realusername]

That's where the problem is, a lot of popular content creators have contracts with large media groups which specifically prevents them to upload to another platform.

[gpm]

Do the media partners in turn have contracts with youtube requiring that they upload to it exclusively?

If not, maybe even if so, that might not be such a bad thing. It would mean that if you could negotiate a deal with a single media group to upload to your platform as well you get a lot of content. I don't imagine these businesses are any happier with being hostage by youtube than individual creators.

[input_sh]

That'd work fine for small channels, but you can bet that the big ones do have exclusivity contracts. Not with YouTube directly, but media groups that tie them to YouTube.

In-video sponsors like Skillshare, NordVPN, Dollar Shave Club or whatever don't contact channels directly. There's someone representing them.

[cameronbrown]

Nobody wants to admit this because everyone here hates ads, but they (ads) are the thing these other YouTube competitors lack and the reason they're not taking off.