Is YouTube Anything More Than A Competition-Killing Monopoly?Feb 16th, 2010 | By James Lewin | 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?