this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
1204 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

60070 readers
4195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

to people saying YouTube is a moneysink for google:

Who says that today? This was true about YouTube many years ago, before Google took it over, I doubt that's still true.

it’s a service that’s too big to fail.

No it's not, most content of value will have back ups and can be uploaded to other services.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google have been saying that for ages, that their YouTube advertising revenue does not cover YouTube's running costs.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Source please.

I tried a search "youtube still running at a deficit"

The ONLY relevant result I got was this 7 year old post on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/593tgc/reminder_google_runs_youtube_at_a_loss/

I made the search on Google, and found this: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/youtube-statistics/

Lots of talk about revenue, but nothing on profit/loss, except they had had losses up until 2014.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Mate 2015 was only yesterday.

Fair play though lol I hadn't quite realised how long it had been.

Also I wouldn't take the losses up until 2014 to mean anything except that the 2015 financials hadn't been published at that time the WSJ article (which both links source) had been written.