youtube is and always has been an exceptionally sort of expensive product to run. We have no idea what how much it costs, how much it's earning. The fact that they sort of havo, separate orgnization with a so called co yet ours getting away with not reporting it, to me, is problematic. And ou don't we're talking about a sight that was purchased well over a decade ago and still not profitable? It seems reasonable to assume that you two was extremely expensive, definitely growing in revenue, but was not profitable.
Ben and James discuss the question of YouTube, why it’s similar and different from Facebook, and why engagement is both alluring and a potential problem.
Links
- YouTube Executives Ignored Warnings, Letting Toxic Videos Run Rampant — Bloomberg
- Ben Thompson: Apple’s Services Event — Stratechery
- Ben Thompson: Mark Zuckerberg’s Proposal, The Copyright Directive and Sunk Costs — Stratechery Daily Update
- Ben Thompson: YouTube and Toxic Videos, YouTube’s Problematic Incentives, Sins of Omission and Commission — Stratechery Daily Update
- Ben Thompson: Friction — Stratechery
- Ben Thompson: The Pollyannish Assumption — Stratechery
- Ben Thompson: The Wall Street Journal and Apple News, The Problem with Regulating Content](https://stratechery.com/2019/the-wall-street-journal-and-apple-news-the-problem-with-regulating-content-australias-terrible-new-law/)
Hosts
Podcast Information