• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And there’s even more people that don’t…

    80m premium subscribers, 2.7b monthly users… Do you really think that’s sustainable without having a secondary source of revenue? Because I don’t know that many businesses that survive from 3% paying customers…

    That’s just for YouTube, but there are other websites that host content that wouldn’t be sustainable without ads and that would need to switch to a paid subscription format.

    Is it so hard to admit that there’s something unusual about expecting websites to run out of the pocket of the owners/employees when we don’t expect real world businesses to do so?

    • BlemboTheThird
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you really think that’s sustainable

      At $15 a month? Yeah totally. The vast majority of that 2.7 billion probably cost a few cents at most to offer service to. Very few people actually upload anything and streaming video is way cheaper than the various streaming services would have you believe. It’s expensive to get off the ground, sure, but it scales well.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Repeat after me, Google isn’t the only provider that hosts a lot of content.

        Would you like it if the majority of websites became pay per use or subscription only?