[JohnTHaller]

> I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big

YouTube is offering up the tech behind streaming the videos, the storage, the bandwidth, the development work on both the client and server ends, and the ongoing payment processing. As well as the audience install-base. And this isn't a situation where the end users are paying for the software via buying hardware from Google (Pixels being the exception) like it would be with just an app store. YouTube provides far more than anyone else. And they make the money to do so via advertising. You're paying the money in place of YouTube's revenue stream in addition to the money going to the creators.

Patreon is mostly a payment processor and gatekeeper. They don't host videos or provide any of the other services mentioned above. To host videos, the creator pays another provider like Vimeo $84 a year for 5GB/week in uploads to $600 for unlimited video uploads. Live streaming is $900 a year.

[ska]

While this is all true, it doesn't obviously counter the GP's contention. It's a good argument as to why YouTube's cut isn't the same as Patreon's, but that doesn't mean that 45% isn't to high.

[sofixa]

Considering Youtube probably doesn't break even ( Alphabet don't list YouTube expenses separately, only revenues, which is suspicious), and the vast majority of content on YouTube is thoroughly unmarketable and unprofitable ( think vacation videos, school lessons, etc.), maybe, maybe not?

[ska]

I agree it's not clear.