YouTube isn't making money, even with a billion viewers

Can’t wait for a videosite or App using SAFEnet. It probably will make money, even without ads :heart_eyes:


Better still, there is little need for these portals like YouTube for video playing. You could just stick it on your file share, reference codecs on another public site, then let the client stitch them together to play it.

TBH, a modern browser should be able to handle this out of the box. Why would we even need YouTube or Vimeo any more?

To add, it would also mean no censorship, truly anonymous broadcasts, etc too. In short, a whole new chapter for online video streaming.


Wow. Shocking. And YouTube has massive amounts of video ads. I thought YouTube made huge profit because video ads were much more expensive than text and image ads. The low profit could be because the video ads are so general, almost like television commercials. With Google Search, the ads can be made super targeted, plus the users are looking for what they search for. Much fuzzier ad targeting for videos in general.


I think that youtube losing in terms of fiscal returns is irrelevant; It’s usefulness is not in it’s ability to extract dollars from users but rather to reliably host video content for people to watch;

So, since youtube is owned by google; I’m sure google is simply shouldering any direct loses from youtube, yet earns tremendously in the service it gives to people;

SAFE Network takes this burden from google in its way; since the maintenance of servers is diminished, and also it will just only take a single app to be a video explorer for example to deliver videos from the SAFE Network;

What does this mean: an app developer can make a good explorer or archive of public videos stored on the SAFE Network and then let the application interpret the data and display the video; this is nothing as costly to do as maintaining a warehouse of servers and maintaining the user facing webpage;


I hope it never makes money. Shows its a reasonable value for the and show Google is trying to avoid direct tax. The money would F it up and go to the wrong people. There is no need for Google to make a profit. Making less profit is key to higher value more competitive services. Google should divest its investors- go non profit or full employee ownership. Cash in should get execs locked up for damaging the public. This article is probably a response to the overrturning of some Bush BS with todays reclassification of broad band to title 2

HTML 5 on SAFE and end user owned mesh. They are never going to make money. All that privatization bull shit theft meets the re-common-ization. The end of toll road dukes. Royals were never anything but welfare cases in the negative sense.

I feel like huge amounts of redundantly copied mostly useless cat videos that are never deleted is the kind of thing that would hurt maidsafe.

What if a big percentage of all maidsafe on peoples drives is giant rarely acquired files? Doesnt this mean terribly high cost and low farmer income?

(yeah i know its stored in chunks, more useless chunks is the same thing)

Redundancy is what MAIDSAFE helps with. Presumably large public repositories will come to exist on the SAFE network. Making a ‘copy’ of that data doesn’t actually copy the data, it means that the data can’t be deleted unless you and everyone else who has ‘copied it’ decide to delete it as well.

1 Like

On the other hand it is creating value…

Advertising is pretty irrelevant in the whole scheme of things.

I see a lot of my favorite channels being sponsored in non-monetary ways. There is a pretty big gifting culture developing on Youtube.


If I administrated YouTube I would change the advertizement. The video ads are horribly intrusive and evidently they don’t even make profit! Instead they could have non-intrusive and more of relevant ads on the webpage outside the video. Of course, YouTube must consider the bigger picture and that includes offering lots of video ads to prevent competitors from grabbing too large piece of that cake.

If YouTube is getting revenue from ads, that must mean its losing more than that somewhere else. Maybe if it is cheaper to buy SafeCoins and host content on the network, it would be a profitable site.


If there was no need, there wouldn´t be any use. You look at it from the perspective of a minority that is irrelevant for Google. Besides, the worst sentences in scalable technologies start with conditional clauses. Of course you could do it differently, but there is a reason why people use Youtube: because it is perfectly aligned to the use of masses (in comparison to basically everything that is related to cryptotechnology). By framing the service of these companies as irrelevant you are effectively rejecting to learn from the best.


I was so happy when I saw that news the other day (TFA I read didn’t say they weren’t making money, but that was pretty clear). And then I thought it’s the best time to kill them off.

I have some vids on there that I plan to delete as soon as I can post them on SAFE Network.

That’s shows misunderstanding of storage technologies and market economics.
First, storage isn’t cheap, even when you do it Google-style.
Secondly, the site is full of garbage and duplicate content because Googlers wanted to make sure they’ll hoard as much content as possible but the game never turned in their favor (garbage remained garbage, and ads they show on frequently visited content never made enough money to cover the cost of storing garbage).

Financial return is of course mandatory, otherwise Search BU ends up subsidizing these deadbeats. After years of Search BU taking a bullet for YT, the silly multi-year synergy BS is over.

To be honest, I don’t find YT particularly “useful”, and I show that with my wallet - I pay nothing (I block all ads, and skip those that I can’t block).

Yeah, the player works, but today any player anywhere works, and only Google manages to insert ads that I can’t block, so I find it much more enjoyable to watch a video (embedded Vimeo, for example) on the site which I’m visiting, than to go to Google and watch ads.

For who? It doesn’t appear it’s creating much value for Google shareholders which is why the axe is falling now.

MaidSafe videos will do fine, especially for semi-static sites (where you don’t have to re-create the index and upload it many times a day). That’s exactly what I need.


Well for me for one.

Cost accounting can be quite deceptive in that everything that can be counted doesn’t count and everything that counts cannot be counted. If you have a machine that makes widgets and it breaks even at x number of widgets per hour, that really doesn’t make a lick of difference on your bottom line if you sell gizmos to build your bottom line. Google’s bottom line is something like 4 dollars per share, so they are not hurting, no matter what their youtube widget maker looks like on the cost accounting sheet.

I provably have saved 800 dollars on auto repairs because I look on youtube and figure out how to diagnose and fix things myself. Usually my next step is to run to google and find a good source for the parts. So chances are decent they are making money there that they probably aren’t at youtube. One could argue that the value was taken out of the mechanic’s pocket and put into mine, but more likely it just delayed the cars going to the junkyard sooner.

If you buy an advertisement on a billboard, it is difficult to know how much money that makes or loses you – You may or may not see revenue right away, but your name recognition or the mere fact that people know you are there can lead to sales for years to come. Youtube is probably much the same. When you have a culture that uses the internet to learn and do - that means they are using the internet. And more often than not people who use the internet also use google…

There are many many things that I know and that I do because I watched somebody on Youtube do it first. Things like screen printing, aquaponics, solar energy, I could have taken a class to learn these skills, but I most likely wouldn’t, and If I had, it would not have lead to searches and subsequent revenue for google when I purchase the supplies etc…

This also creates more suppliers for Youtube – As people learn and do -they are more inclined to share — creating more content that they allow youtube to leverage for free…

So at the end of the day it is really hard to put a dollar on every “value” created… Because value flows in unpredictable and slow ways, and often seeds that are planted today will not yield harvest for years to come. Google is still making money hand over fist, so investing in something that is break even or even a slight loss isn’t a big deal. They are investing in building people’s curiosity, which leads to searches which lead to sales.

Good points. But I think one of appropriate questions here would be: could Google let someone else run the vid site and do the rest the same way (make money from ads). They certainly know the answer and I think this move shows what the answer is.

I haven’t noticed that many people are trying to run other ads than Google’s.

Also, look at the actual non-free pricing on any other videos site (eg Vimeo) and you’ll see how expensive that appears. I think that’s because it is really expensive.

By the way have you wondered whether the significant savings you realized by watching useful YT content would be outweighed or not (since there are no ads at them moment) by value provided by ad-free SAFE Network videos?
I think that too deserves some consideration. Maybe some people find it more convenient to watch an ad infested site and do troubleshooting and purchasing in one go, rather than watch vids on SAFE and then google for spare parts?

Google certainly has economies of scale that make it difficult for others to enter the market.

But they have it… Once they own it , it is mostly overhead, not variable cost… Certainly you could turn them off and save power… Or hook them to solar and fuel cells, all of which Google is doing.

Video is likely to be expensive on SAFE too. We shall see how it all shakes out, but saving megabytes is saving megabytes and serving megabytes is serving megabytes no matter where or how you do it. Google can afford to do it as a loss leader… SAFE probably doesn’t have a secondary revenue stream to make it up with.

SAFE is going to be bound by economics just like everyone else.

1 Like

You misunderstand my point.

From a software and infrastructure perspective, the is little reason for YouTube on safe. I don’t dispute that branding, ease of use, etc helps users.

Safe net has the potential to offload all infrastructure and codec issues, with videos becoming little different from a HTML page in rendering terms.

Browser technology is already pushing this way for peer to peer video/audio conferencing too. I suspect this will make Skype redundant for many people too.

As the Dropbox: the first Dead Decacorn - #9 by westleyd thread suggests, being surplus to requirements is your worst competition.

There has been a number of spam posts in this thread trying to promote this scam/malware product as a anti-malware site/product

the site is malwareprotectioncenter

information about the malware-site

Can I suggest that the thread is closed.


I don’t think Traktion actually said this, but what he said was so similar that I’m having trouble telling the difference.

I am not sure what your point is, Tbh.

YouTube became successful as it made uploading and playing videos easy. Codecs were all over the show and you would frequently not be able to play content on websites. Even if you could host it, it would demolish your bandwidth and resources at your host, making it expensive.

Safe net will provide bandwidth and resources. Safe net with modern browsers can also easily link codecs before running videos. The technical issues aren’t hard to resolve now.

We don’t go to Yahoo index to find manually added links anymore, we just use a search engine. Likewise, I don’t need to go to some website to find videos. Sure, I may get a link to YouTube, but I don’t much care for where it is hosted - why should I?

The irony of your joke is that technology has moved on. Much like the command line (or even 640kb) being enough for anyone sounding silly now, YouTube being enough is also daft. We can do much better on safe net.


My point was that your post seemed to believe that ease of use was of little importance, when a company become a mega success essentially by directly proving that statement wrong. Relating it to the topic, youtube and the other big tech companies can easily stay relevant simply by presenting data stored on SAFEnet if not SAFEnet itself (probably not) in a grandma friendly fashion, particularly since their storage costs will reduce significantly while they’re being given a side revenue stream.