It's not meant for random individuals to post their cat videos and make a quick buck, it's a monetization option for popular people/communities that gives them more revenue streams, which is great if it gets them out of the fist of Google/Amazon. Having 80% of your revenue tied to a mega-corp's ad rate is a big incentive to diversify...
I can't find any statistics for twitch subs easily, but it seems like "modestly popular" in your view equates to a very tiny percentage of streamers.
One thing not being mentioned much in the comments are the nuances of a subscription-only model. People who don't like the content will simply never see it, they've stated themselves that as long as it's not explicitly illegal (child pornography, weapons manufacturing, etc) they'll allow any creator onto the platform. Although we have yet to see it tested, what happens when a publicly loathed far-right community sets up shop there...
The site seems to be at a beta stage at the moment and they are probably letting creators in very slowly so I would hold off if your intention is to completely replace YouTube.
As a different comparison point, HBO NOW is $15/month and that gets you a very small amount of content.
Rather than paying a fee to Netflix let's just make our own and what you end up with is 100s of providers that have 1 or 2 things you actually want to watch.
I can understand how you might look at it that way, but I guess it depends on how you define value. To an investor, no of course not... one youtube channel could never have the same asset value as half of the content on netflix.
But, if you're talking about personal value, emotional value, qualitative value, I don't think you can speak in terms of asset value. A super fan doesn't care how much the content cost to produce or the variety of that content, in fact they want more of that one type of content than anything else. Most people have something they are irrational fanatical about and would pay more than $5/month to consume/learn/see everything about that thing. It's about a feeling and that feeling is often worth more than $5/month.
That also doesn't include content that has real monetary value to consumers. For example, there is one stock related youtube channel I follow that charges $8/month for access to their private stock picks, analysis, etc. If that helps someone generate a 1% gain in their portfolio growth then that could very well be worth more than the content on netflix to that one consumer since the content on Netflix costs them more than it makes them.
So, I think it's fair to say that someone may like one show or creator half as much as they like the content on Netflix even though the asset value could never compare.
It's useless to you, yes. Floatplane is a way for established video creators to acquire a more stable revenue stream and for viewers to support their preferred video creators without being subject to ads.
It's not a place for creators to find a new audience. It's not a place for new creators to build an audience. It's basically a replacement for Vessel - more like an alternative to Patreon than YouTube.
> I'm not at all interested in starting multiple subscriptions at $5 a months for these two-bit channels. $1 per channel is a massive flex, but $5 is like some fantasy world flex.
Correct. Floatplane gives users an option to pay for a premium viewing experience (better video quality, cleaner UI, better comments) while supporting their favorite creators. However, it's not an alternative to YouTube. Video creators can (and should) still use other platforms like YouTube to sustain and expand their audience.