[Spivak]

I think hosting a niche video site is more PT’s speed anyway.

There are plenty of video makers that have an audience that would follow them them to a new platform and PT is one way to do that and (possibly) keep more of the cut that YT is currently taking now.

As long as YT stays dominant they’re always going to have the advantage of availability and discovery so it’s honestly not worth competing for makers on that front.

[jasode]

>I think hosting a niche video site is more PT’s speed anyway.

I'm not debating you but just want to highlight the 1st sentence from the article of this thread: ", we have been developing a software to free us all from YouTube & Co for a year."

Whether the dev team really thinks PeerTube's architecture can replace Youtube for "all of us" instead of just niche content, I can't say.

[0xffff2]

> keep more of the cut that YT is currently taking now.

Keep more of what cut? AFAICT, YouTube creators make money from two primary sources: YouTube ads and Patreon. The latter is independent of YouTube (i.e. YouTube doesn't get a cut). The former seems very closely tied to YouTube. How would an independent creator even go about sourcing ads to show on their independent site? Do they want to put in the effort? Would they really have enough leverage to get paid substantially more than their cut of YouTube's ads?

[dwild]

> How would an independent creator even go about sourcing ads to show on their independent site? Do they want to put in the effort?

I'm pretty sure networks on Youtube are able to provide alternative ads on channels part of their networks already.

Any Youtuber can also put bake ads directly in their videos too, all the big ones already do that either in sponsorship, or literally as ads (see Linus Tech Tips as a reference).

So essentially PeerTube doesn't add anything in revenue, it only remove Youtube ads network (which can provide quite a bit of money without any effort in ads).