Is YouTube Anything More Than A Competition-Killing Monopoly?

Feb 16th, 2010 | By | Category: Commentary, General, Internet TV, Video

Dan Rayburn has published an interesting, but savage, critique of YouTube over at Business of Video.

In it, he argues that YouTube is stifling innovation and couldn’t survive without Google’s deep pockets:

YouTube didn’t contribute to the technology of the industry at all. They haven’t created any codecs, new delivery protocols, created any industry standards or even lead the pack by adding new functionality.

The only reason YouTube is even around in the market to have the chance to turn a profit is because Google has deep pockets and is willing to lose a lot of money on a long-term bet. Google is giving YouTube the time to be successful and if and when it turns a profit, it will be as a result of Google’s cash and not because of YouTube’s “innovation”.

YouTube is no different than many other sites like Veoh, except for the fact that YouTube is still around  because they are owned by Google. Without that, YouTube would not exist in the market. They could not afford to. I have no problem with YouTube getting the credit for what they have done, but they get far too much credit for what they haven’t done and for technology that they have not developed, created or lead the market with.

Rayburn also rips YouTube for failing to become a platform for vloggers and indie videographers to make money.

It’s true that YouTube hasn’t been as innovative as some other video sites.

But YouTube has done three things right:

  • It’s easy to use.
  • It has tons of content.
  • It hooked up with a deep-pocketed sugar daddy.

What do you think about YouTube and the state of Internet video? Can YouTube do no wrong – or are they a competition-killing monopoly?

Tags: , , , ,

5 Responses to “Is YouTube Anything More Than A Competition-Killing Monopoly?”

  1. Technically they aren’t a monopoly, but like Microsoft’s Windows they have a dominant majority.

    And don’t forget that the site is only five years old so it’s still in it’s infancy. If it doesn’t become profitable eventually Google will pull the plug.

    There’s also no reason it has to cater to vloggers or videographers. It’s really just a tool for people to share their videos with others.

  2. elliot says:

    Google is doing exactly what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer – pump money into it until it kills off the competition. It worked for Microsoft.

    YouTube’s getting 10 times as many views as any of its competitors and doesn’t have to worry about expenses, so how long will it be until YouTube sends Vimeo and other video sites head to the dead pool?

    • SortingHat says:

      Exactly! YouTube is for the internet what AT and T was for the telephones which while they made very sturdy phones you could run a tank over them they held the government ‘hostage’ and there were justified fears of black mailing going on.

      AT&T is equal to the NSA spying today having a monopoly in the defense business leaving no room for creative spunk or being fired if they lag too far behind and people are no longer satisfied or feel their existence is justified.

      Google is the AT&T of the web industry controlling content and making their search engines use Watson to ‘guess’ what you want instead of allowing you to use filters such as ‘No Shopping Please!’ or only dot org/edu sites.

      In the early 2000s and late 90s you could actually filter the type of addresses to get rid of commercial sites on your results.

    • SortingHat says:

      It’s amazing all the articles now on Google are from 2010 or earlier in a lot of cases unless it’s mains stream stuff.

  3. SortingHat says:

    No matter how much money is poured into something you can’t fix stupid people.

Leave a Reply