Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtetzner | Hacker News Reader

To make money. YouTube, Google+, Google Search, and Chrome don't make money, other than being vehicles for advertising. (I don't know anything about their internet service.)

View on HN

While you're not wrong, this is an important statement. Fact is, youtube, google search, and chrome are all best of class products (arguably). Google is an ecosystem that keeps you by offering the best of everything. And it's all monetarily free. But this keeps you looking at advertising. People pay good money to be the first result of google. Youtube ads are generally noninvasive enough to sit through. Would you pay for google search, or youtube? I might, but eventually a free competitor would pop up and shift the momentum. Google is interesting in that other than side ventures, they have tons of great products that all tie into their only real revenue stream - advertising. And for now, weighing the pros vs the cons of this, I'm ok with it.

Youtube is certainly not best of class, it's 'only' the most popular.

It's where I go to look for videos in category (X) because it's the best.

It's not about being best on class on video quality or features (which could be Vimeo for example).

It's about being best of class for being a video repository that actually has the huge majority of the videos people want.

YouTube is likely as profitable as Netflix.

http://news.investors.com/technology-click/051914-701377-goo...

Well you could argue they would have no real ability to financialize ads if they didn't do real work on those products.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/12/googles-y...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com