• Nath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    It is frightfully expensive to host video content. YouTube would cost Billions per year to run.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I always wonder about this. I pay only a few bucks per month for Nebula. I highly suspect Nebula is running at a loss.

      • Jaigoda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not necessarily. Nebula operates at a far, far smaller scope, with an emphasis on quality of videos over quantity, and every user is a paid user. If every user of YouTube was paying a couple bucks per month, they’d be making in the high tens of billions of dollars of revenue per year, several times more than they do with ads. Plus YouTube has a ridiculously huge amount of essentially worthless videos because literally anyone can upload a 10 hour video, so surely their hosting costs are higher per user than Nebula.

      • LibreFish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Subscriptions are really lucrative. Iirc most ads pay like 0.1-0.5 cents per view, so you’d need to watch an insane amount of videos to equal the cost of a $2 subscription. I could probably make a site that brings in money if I had 5 $2 subscribers and a half 100 medium quality vids. Start scaling that up and it can be really profitable while offering subscribers a fair shake.