Where was Google’s concern for paying for infrastructure in the past? Google choose to bleed money which made it harder for smaller competitors to compete and take a share of the users, and now Google wants to have their eat and eat it too. Too damn bad.
I am unwilling to pay for the content while Google is where the content is. Odysee seemed shady to me so I stopped using it. Floatplane is proprietary and I’m trying to kick the nasty habbit of using proprietary software, I don’t want to start using new ones.
Then don’t watch the content. But in lieu of a open source, non profit, market dominating video platform thus means not watching videos.
Even if that open source platform existed it would require it to be more or equally profitable for creators to reach a point where people upload to both platforms.
I’ll keep watching the content, thanks.
Floatplane is owned by a YouTuber more about capitalism than tech at this point
Look at nebula, the creator owned network (from what I’ve heard about it)
shalafi@lemmy.world 1 year ago
YouTube has been in the red since day 1. Now Google wants their payback. OK. Seems fair. But I don’t have to participate.
Everybody acting like Google is taking away a basic human right, or somehow “taxing” them is getting exhausting.
Facebook is up to even more shenanigans, proposing to charge users to keep ads off the screen. Again, fine. I don’t have to use FB.
runblack@reddthat.com 1 year ago
Payback is fair? Even though these very digital megacorporations are just now facing antitrust lawsuits for very good reasons? The only argument for having to use these platforms as a content creator is reach. But if Google, Amazon, Meta, etc. only got their market-dominating positions by illegal means, nothing is fair about wanting payback.
I am paying money to people creating content for me directly, even for some YouTube channels. If I were to abide by Google’s rules, I’d have to pay double. For the infrastructure & the people actually producing the content. Sorry… Why would I? I will not pity a monopolist because of their lost profits as long as I can circumvent it somehow.
abhibeckert@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s not fair, it’s literally illegal under antitrust law in almost every country in the world.
You can’t run a service as a loss leader until nearly all your competition is dead and then start charging more than customers are willing to pay (or showing more ads than customers are willing to watch).
I’m happy to pay for video content - but I won’t pay the prices YouTube is charging.
coffeewithalex@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s not fair to pay money for services to a company involved in unrelated lawsuits? Does the antitrust investigation negate the expenses associated with running the operation of serving you content?
Are all competitors dead? You can switch to watching TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, for random user generated content. You can go to nebula if you want YouTube style documentaries. You can go to any movie platform if you want to watch random stuff. They are all either in the red, backed by VC, waiting to do the same thing, or serving aggressive ads, or selling your data, or costing money.
How much people are willing to pay is irrelevant in the context of fairness. Fairness is about a company breaking even. Customer readiness is however relevant to business, and in this case I’m afraid that the evidence is against you - after countless similar complaints in the past, people haven’t left the platform, and people have signed up to pay.
Paying for services is normal. It’s unrealistic not to. It’s unproductive to pretend otherwise.
Elderos@lemmings.world 1 year ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing