I wonder if this is a fair comparison, though. It strikes me that Netflix’ revenue model is simpler and their costs are also lower, but I guess we won’t know YouTube’s costs any time soon.
One might imagine that the cache-ability is lower than Netflix, I can't comment on this, but GGC is very significant.
500 hours of video getting uploaded a min plus processing costs (including AI) for no upfront $$s. Far simpler CDN optimization
Netflix's content pipeline is hella expensive, due to their being boycotted by major content owners (like disney).
So i would imagine that youtube's revenue model is more efficient and thus generate a higher return than netflix's.
only if that video generated sufficient revenue to pay out - which is quite a high bar. But the long tail of content is what draws people onto youtube as a platform - so youtube derive a benefit from this long tail content that they do not pay for.
However, the long tail for netflix won't have this advantage at all (because even niche shows with low audience will cost money to produce).
Not to mention that netflix has to pay upfront for their content. Where as youtube only pays _after_ the content has had ads displayed that generated revenue.
How so? Netflix has to license or produce all their content.
Out of the 60bn they made only 325 ml from paid subscribers. The title made it like it was an important figure. There's also no YOY numbers or profit so it's difficult to draw a conclusion.
[1] https://outlierkit.com/resources/youtube-60-billion-revenue/
That's a lot of moolah!
Still frankly one of the few redeeming aspects of YouTube. My feed is disastrous.
bradgessler•23m ago
almosthere•16m ago
Brajeshwar•12m ago
aurareturn•6m ago
saidinesh5•5m ago
danpalmer•3m ago
CuriouslyC•5m ago
kibibu•4m ago
aamar•3m ago
Looking back, I’m still pretty amazed they got so much of it right. Which is to say, a good chunk of the value wasn’t in the value of YouTube itself but in what Google brought to the table _or_ a synergy between the two.
Quarrel•1m ago
A bit like Google Maps though, a great visionary early investment that they then poured a lot of $ into to make them what they are today. No one else was just providing free satellite imagery for the entire world back then, not even Google Maps.
The investments to support these two products at least, have been really important in helping Google maintain its hold in other places too.
Lots of people still whinge about youtube, but standing up a solid competitor would take too many $ for anyone but other big tech now.