Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix's Biggest Competition Isn't Sleep -- It's YouTube (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings loves to identify sleep as the biggest competition of its service. "Sometimes employees at Netflix think, 'Oh my god, we're competing with FX, HBO, or Amazon, but think about it. If you didn't watch Netflix last night: What did you do? There's such a broad range of things that you did to relax and unwind, hang out, and connect -- and we compete with all of that," he once said. "You get a show or a movie you're really dying to watch, and you end up staying up late at night, so we actually compete with sleep," he added. Turns out, Hastings does not need to look that far for competition.

From a report: Despite Netflix and Amazon investing billions of dollars in producing original content, they are struggling to make inroads in emerging markets. YouTube, on the other hand, is growing rapidly, becoming a daily habit for even new internet users. In India, for instance, YouTube reaches 245 million unique users each month, or 85 percent of all internet users in the country, the company told VentureBeat. About 60 percent of all YouTube traffic in India comes from outside of its six major cities. [Globally, YouTube has 1.9 billion monthly active users.]

As consumption on YouTube grows, creators are also finding loyal audiences. In India alone, YouTube now has more than 600 channels with more than 1 million subscribers, up from 20 channels in 2016. Record label T-Series, which is fighting with PewDiePie for the title of most-subscribed YouTube channel, took 10 years to get to its first 10 million subscribers. In the last two years, it has grown to 60 million subscribers. Globally, YouTube says the number of channels with more than 1 million subscribers has grown by 75 percent this year.

Globally, YouTube told VentureBeat that 75 percent of the platform's watch time occurs on a mobile device. The average watch time for a mobile user is 60 minutes per day. Or in other words, this is the time a user could have spent watching Netflix. According to eMarketer's estimates, an average user would spend about 86 minutes per day watching digital videos on streaming services this year.

115 comments

  1. youtube union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet it could all crumble if youtube keep pissing off tomorrow's next pewdiepie.
    heard about the youtube union?

    1. Re:youtube union by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Forget the content creators banding together, if YouTube simply keeps trying to monetize itself as heavily as it has been recently, they'll lose a number of their regular users.

      Right now, it's not uncommon for my wife and I to launch the YouTube app on a TV-connected device right before we hit the hay, watch a video or two as we wind down mentally, then go to sleep. But with them shoving unskippable ads down our throats on what feels like every single video, as well as interrupting the content to shove ads into the videos if they run longer than about 10 minutes, we're quickly reaching a breaking point. We're close to either not bothering with YouTube at all for any amount of idle watching, or else I'll finally get around to setting up whole-home ad-blocking for our entire home network (e.g. Pi-hole), either of which is a loss for them.

  2. Makes sense by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    It turns out that lazily producing Cop Drama #3485 and Medical Drama #4859 works for 5% of people, but there are others who are looking for something else.

    1. Re:Makes sense by Junta · · Score: 2

      While I think this is a bit beside the point of youtube v. netflix, I will say their losses of non-netflix content has been putting a damper on my interest in their selection. The netflix original content has improved in variety thankfully, but still can't easily compete with the plethora of non-netflix content.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re: Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Drama, violence, sex, propaganda, competition...

      I can't stand TV but I do sympathize with any reasons why people watch it. Boredom and having nothing better to do, two certain reasons. Not really good long-term bases for decisions but those are factors for people.

      I want to learn shit. Because I want to do shit.

      85 year-old John Doe who worked for USPS his whole life who's now building a geothermal greenhouse growing CITRUS in NEBRASKA isn't on Netflix, but he's the motherfucker I want to listen to.

      My girlbabe has Netflix now because of her friend having an account with a free spot. Three weeks ago she got that. And it still doesn't appeal to me. Way too scripted.

      Anyways. Just my two cents.

    3. Re: Makes sense by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      I saw that geothermal citrus grower video too. Much better content than anything on TV.

    4. Re: Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :)

    5. Re:Makes sense by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      A successful YouTube Chanel, would be an abysmal failure on network television, just on numbers alone.
      But it is cheap to produce on YouTube so these bad numbers are still making you a big channel, because a quality production is costing thousands of dollars per episode vs millions for broadcast.

      Sue YouTube production quality is often poor compared to broadcast. But because of the relatively low risk, interesting story ideas and shows can be made. Because an absolute failure will not bankrupt you for life.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re: Makes sense by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong witch scripted shows. They actually have a lot of value. Star Trek for example, was used to express the problems of society of its time, while being unique enough to not seem threatening. Issue like the cold war and its problems were expressed without latching onto our current prejudice. Or often take such ideas and express them to the extreme to show flaws in the ideas.

      This is different from propaganda, which tells you how to think, vs enlightenment gives you more factors to think about.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re: Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not bashing scripted shows. I'm saying that scripted shows do not *necessarily* reflect reality in any valuable way outside of providing entertainment. To come out with the Star Trek argument is a good argument to come out with against a whole lot of shit. I'm with you, that is valuable.

      But petty scripted dramatic modern soap opera type crap that just keeps people in emotional holes and past-fixated, or programs meant to, well, program people, with the intent of keeping people thinking certain ways about certain things, and constant exposure to sexual content that arouses to the point of prolonged and contiguous distraction from REAL life â" all that shit can bite it, if you want to know how I really feel.

      Programs that reflect or challenge or subtly expose real matters or important bodies of thought and speculation, like Star Trek, are a different story.

      But life is not scripted, and many people subscribe to programs that end up manifesting through personal action as distorting forces in the social sphere, which is fine for providing growth as we all learn to see the truths of matters, but on its own, is shit.

      Two more cents or so. By no means exhaustive or comprehensive.

    8. Re: Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scripted content was more subtle back then. Now they are so over the top, they promote ideology so bluntly it hurts.
      In the past it was all entertainment with a bit of ideology, now it is bludgeoning ideology and doesn't even entertain.

    9. Re: Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shiny, flashing CGI productions - there's the entertainment factor.

      Just so happens that tits, dragons, blood, and shouting, all at once, really keep people glued down!

    10. Re:Makes sense by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      I find the technical channels on youtube to be far superior in quality to broadcast, actually. There are a bunch of technical channels run by engineers, so the dialogue is quite a bit better, production quality is the same if not better. There are a bunch of retired engineers sailing around the world these days producing their own youtube videos about sailing, or rebuilding sailboats, making a ton of money doing it..
       
      My takeaway from this has been that most people working on broadcast reality TV are shit-for-brains monkeys, be it writing, editing or camerawork. Now granted, they are probably in the top 1% of youtube channels, but it is amazing to see the quality that comes out of some of these channels with one or two regulars, a laptop to edit it on, and a DSLR to shoot it with.
       
      I think that is the great part about the youtube channels though, you can focus on a very specific skillset, and provide excellent weekly videos with high quality content for a reasonable cost (support that one to two people) to a smaller audience, and better tailor the content to that audience.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    11. Re: Makes sense by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it is more of an issue of age.
      When we were young, these were new concepts to us, and the popular shows of the time that we watch got our attention and such ideas were interesting and radical. However as we grew older we see the same thing over and over again, and no longer gains the same attention, and just seems more blunt, while in actually it isn't as bad as you think it is, but as you got older you ability to spot the deeper meaning has improved, and your views on things get more firmly fixed. So if a show has a "non-standard relationship" a younger person will see this and realize not all families follow the same structure, while the older person will see it as the group you grew up to learn to hate and fear as a threat to your way of life.

      The view is that culture peaked when you hit your 20's no matter what your age is, everything else past that is either repetitive or just lazy and shotty.
      The Boomers are pining for the easy life of the 1950's and 1960's. Gen X thinks the 1970's and 1980's, Menials are now pining for the 1990's and 2000's

      For me as a late Gen X Star Trek TNG was my first experience with it. And its stances allowed me to approach things differently beyond the strict code of my parents. TOS which I watched covered many of the same topics, but showed its age and I didn't enjoy it as much, Voyager and Enterprise just seemed repetitive and just preachy. But if you were to ask a boomer about Star Trek TOS was far superior to all the others...

      For most people in the first world, your late teens and early 20's is your most optimistic part of your life, despite the stress and depression we have trying to attract a mate, the future is wide open to us, still under our parents to cover necessities, but the freedom to explore and do what we want. Where in a decade we are tied down with a Job and Family, while brings a new form of joy, means you just cannot getup and leave and explore a different country, take that job where you travel all the time, get the higher paid 1099 work, because you don't need to worry about those benefits.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re: Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two Cents AC poster here, just to say that I appreciate your perspective. Refreshing to see someone else break it down like this.

      The concepts you've presented, being unshakably basic and universal yet so crucial and often-enough ignored, are certainly not beyond the mental capacity of people who have been on this planet for 40, 50 years... but as a 28 year-old my fucking god have I and do I continue to run into so many people even down to 30+ years of age, but mostly "X" and "Boomers", who seem to rather forcefully cast aside these truths about PERSPECTIVE.

      So we have all these people on all ends of the "generational war" (such fucking crap, and people need to grow the fuck up, AKA realize once again and for all these basic concepts and get on with the real issues, quit shitting on each other all the time, etc.), fighting with each other all the time. I imagine mostly it's shit flowing downhill because these bad ideas about "shitty generations" like "Millenials" and "GenY" are propagated ferociously by national media seeking to maintain the now-threadbare curtain of "status quo," as inherited and/or created by a whole hell of a lot of Boomers and many Xers.

      The 90s. I grew up with a Mac G3 tower to fuck around with because my dad was a big shot editor in Ivy League college magazines then. He "did well." He grew up in the 60s. People who were financially-stable-enough PARENTS in the 60s USA probably "did pretty well" themselves, and did so within the confines of the old American status quo mentality. Work hard, focus on responsibilities, and everything else comes after that, if anything else comes at all.

      At least, I can speak of my own "middle class" upbringing and the two generations of middle class American heritage which precede it.

      So to tie this back in a bit, because I could write for hours and seeing as I'm not scrubbing this all too critically...

      My gripe with current media is that people who are my age, while in high school and in their early 20s, were ripe to have their social and sexual lenses hijacked by Hollywood and shitty television (aka "most television"). Who wouldn't be? Meanwhile, our parents were starting to hear about how shitty we are, or were getting that idea while we tried to forge lives for ourselves, all youthful and spry and horny, but maybe not making a whole lot of "progress" within the scope of THEIR status quo.

      Meanwhile, national media was (and is) showing older generations all these horrible things that are going on with and by the hands of younger people. There are the issues and on television, many of which are perfectly real, but then, huh. My parents' generation didn't grow up with video games where you can fuck and then kill prostitutes. Nor did they grow up with "The Real World" and shit like that.

      Anyways, before I go too far down the hole...

      It's just frustrating sometimes that the war between generations, sponsored and propagated by people who sponsor and propagate, has gone on long enough to create some pretty well-rooted ideas about younger people, my own "generation" included. Plus the VERY old bullshit "Ehhh son you can't be tired, you're not old enough to feel tired" has been around forever and needs to bite it.

      That was more like ten cents and I've lost track of my point. But anyways, cheers to you Jello, for having your eyes open. And for sharing.

    13. Re: Makes sense by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

      The view is that culture peaked when you hit your 20's no matter what your age is, everything else past that is either repetitive or just lazy and shotty.

      F that. Culture peaked in the 1950's, and I was born in 1971.

      --
      Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    14. Re:Makes sense by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      You realize a YouTube channel is equal to a TV show, right?

      So the comparison would be, say, 5 YouTube videos per hour, times 24 hours per day versus individual TV channels.

      So that works out to 120 YouTube channel videos on one TV channel.

      That would become the most watched TV channel overnight.

      --
      I come here for the love
    15. Re:Makes sense by havana9 · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you are, but I have found on public television channells a lot of very interesting content, unfortunately it's normally on specialized channels or in late hours or in the morning. Granted having a piano master explaining the harmonic progression of a sonata and then interviweving a soprano it's a niche show, not to mention live opera.
      Or this program: I miei vinili" a talk show where a famous peron tals about its favourite records while they'te played on a turntable in the studio.

    16. Re: Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I'm a millennial.

  3. Amazing... by Junta · · Score: 4, Funny

    You mean to tell me a free video website has more reach than one that requires a monthly payment? I would never have guessed that...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re: Amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YouTube isn't free. They cost us dearly.

    2. Re: Amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use ad blockers, you insensitive clod!

    3. Re: Amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abds are the least of your worries. Try visiting https://myactivity.google.com

    4. Re: Amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? It's not like Netflix doesn't track its users activity.

  4. Binge is dead by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's how my family currently uses Netflix. Our usage has definitely dropped over time.

    1) Wife will "watch" a series if it's interesting, maybe BBC, after the 10pm news. She's typically asleep by 10:40 and 3/4 episodes often play while she's snoozing.
    2) I watch old Star Trek series, maybe the occasional anime or new sci fi series - typically in the background while I'm working on some side project by myself late at night.
    3) Young daughter will watch girl cartoons, typically for about an hour at a time per day.
    4) Teen boys ignore it. They know how to pirate and don't even bother checking to see if NetFlix has a version of what they want to watch before downloading.

    What aren't we doing? Sitting down to watch anything other than the occasional movie together. No one binges series after series anymore; we pretty much got that out of our systems two years ago. And we still pirate GoT and other "premium" series, particularly if the only legit version online is season-limited or injected with commercials. But 3-4 hours of the same series...in the same sitting? Ain't nobody got that kind of time...

    1. Re:Binge is dead by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      TV (and its internet based replacements) have turned from the focus of attention to something you keep running in the background. I don't really watch anything, most of the time it just runs in a spare monitor as some sort of entertainment for the couple brain cells that are not occupied doing something more worthwhile. Given that most series and shows are only interesting about 5-10 minutes of their 40 minute run, with the rest being useless filler to pass the time between the ads, it's good enough to get the plot.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Binge is dead by urdak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Watching for 3-4 hours straight isn't the only way to do "Binge". What I usually do is watch Netflix about 30 minutes each night (I don't have time for more...), finishing an entire season of a series in a couple of weeks. It's still a "binge" in the sense that I watch the series as one very long movie, and rarely watch other things in the middle. I actually feel that series-watching on Netflix have become the new "book": it takes a long time to finish, every night you continue from where you left off last night, you don't usually do it for 4 hours straight but perhaps more like 30 minutes, and it has a lot of depth and breadth (unlike a short movie).

      Netflix still has a lot of series I want to watch, but I wish they had a lot more of the older TV series (there are *decades* worth of excellent series out there). Star Trek is an excellent example of older content they do have, and I watched.

    3. Re:Binge is dead by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      YouTube is a different thing. Most of it is amateur or pro-am stuff. Far more niche than any other broadcast format. Videos are typically much shorter than TV programmes. It's a very different beast to Netflix or traditional TV.

      That also explains why YouTube's Premium service is such a joke. 12 quid for no ads and a few original shows. Netflix HD is 8 quid. I'd gladly give them a couple of bucks for no ads, but they only seem to be interested in being some kind of very premium music video service.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Binge is dead by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      I also have Prime. And I am with you. Prime does have a lot of old T.V. series. Shoot, I watched the very first Beverly Hillbilly's episode last night.

      In our bedroom, we only run an air antenna along with NetFlix and Prime. There ton's of old series. Dragnet, Night Court, Columbo, Space 1999, and more.

      I really don't watch a lot of movies, but my Girl Friend does. That and the NetFlix series.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    5. Re:Binge is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That also explains why YouTube's Premium service is such a joke. 12 quid for no ads and a few original shows. Netflix HD is 8 quid. I'd gladly give them a couple of bucks for no ads, but they only seem to be interested in being some kind of very premium music video service.

      Well yeah, that 12 quid also gets you their dedicated streaming music service. You can get just "Youtube Music Premium" on its own for 10 quid.mo the same as what other dedicated streaming music services like Spotify and Tidal and Apple Music all charge, while offering a marginally higher tier that'll also get rid of ads on regular Youtube.

      They're not gonna drop billions of dollars on 'premium' original programming like Netflix and Amazon are doing, and they've already got years of experience dealing with royalties payments so of course they've structured everything more to compete with other music services more other premium video services.

    6. Re:Binge is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...No one binges series after series anymore; we pretty much got that out of our systems two years ago. And we still pirate GoT and other "premium" series, particularly if the only legit version online is season-limited or injected with commercials. But 3-4 hours of the same series...in the same sitting? Ain't nobody got that kind of time...

      If you're going through the effort of downloading pirated content in order to watch it, you're probably wasting just as much time as the average binge-watcher.

      And as far as not even checking Netflix before pirating shit, that's just fucking stupid. Talk about not having time to sit around waiting for shit.

    7. Re:Binge is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might not be the only way to watch, but it's definitely the only way to binge. You ever heard of a guy going on a crazy alcohol binge - 1 glass a night, forever?

    8. Re:Binge is dead by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't even want the original programming. Just ad-free YouTube. A few bucks a month. Exclude music videos if you like. Come on YouTube.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Binge is dead by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but since GoT is available via HBO, which is not filled with ads or season limited, what's your justification for pirating it? I mean, I get that $15/mo is too expensive for some people, but are you really pleading poverty?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:Binge is dead by Guybrush_T · · Score: 2

      The HBO Android TV app is as crappy as it can be. Crashes, hangs, doesn't even remember where you stopped. I cancelled my subscription after the free month just because of that. Watching GoT was such a pain. Sometimes I had to restart an episode from the beginning and skip to the place it crashed otherwise it would crash again.

      I'd rather download high quality files and play them on Kodi.

    11. Re:Binge is dead by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

      You ever heard of a guy going on a crazy alcohol binge - 1 glass a night, forever?

      Yes but did you see the 68oz glass pitcher he was drinking it out of?

      68oz Pitcher

    12. Re:Binge is dead by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      Didn't know prime had old TV series. Green Acres here I come!

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    13. Re:Binge is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      4) if your kids were robbing the local convenience store every afternoon would you try to stop them?

    14. Re:Binge is dead by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      I'd rather get free stuff too!

      Look, for a long time, people said "oh, if only it was available ala carte as streaming, I wouldn't pirate" Then, it was available, and people found a new excuse.

      However, if you want a better player, and have Prime already, you can watch HBO through the Prime Video app (for a surcharge). Or, the app on iDevices works pretty well.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re:Binge is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's how my family currently uses Netflix. Our usage has definitely dropped over time.

      1) Wife will "watch" a series if it's interesting, maybe BBC, after the 10pm news. She's typically asleep by 10:40 and 3/4 episodes often play while she's snoozing.
      2) I watch old Star Trek series, maybe the occasional anime or new sci fi series - typically in the background while I'm working on some side project by myself late at night.
      3) Young daughter will watch girl cartoons, typically for about an hour at a time per day.
      4) Teen boys ignore it. They know how to pirate and don't even bother checking to see if NetFlix has a version of what they want to watch before downloading.

      What aren't we doing? Sitting down to watch anything other than the occasional movie together. No one binges series after series anymore; we pretty much got that out of our systems two years ago. And we still pirate GoT and other "premium" series, particularly if the only legit version online is season-limited or injected with commercials. But 3-4 hours of the same series...in the same sitting? Ain't nobody got that kind of time...

      Our local laundromat lost $2000 to lawyers fees after offering free wi-fi that pirates used... your teenagers? Thanks, dickhead.

    16. Re:Binge is dead by Guybrush_T · · Score: 1

      Look, for a long time, people said "oh, if only it was available ala carte as streaming, I wouldn't pirate" Then, it was available, and people found a new excuse.

      Not true. Many stopped pirating when it became more convenient, including me. But I just meant that I considered it in the middle of watching GoT (through legal means). Now some will always pirate stuff, and I'm not advocating for that.

      However, if you want a better player, and have Prime already, you can watch HBO through the Prime Video app (for a surcharge). Or, the app on iDevices works pretty well.

      None of this works for me.

    17. Re:Binge is dead by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> If you're going through the effort of downloading pirated content in order to watch it, you're probably wasting just as much time

      If you had a geek card, now would be the time you need to turn it in.

    18. Re:Binge is dead by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> Our local laundromat lost $2000 to lawyers fees after offering free wi-fi that pirates used... your teenagers?

      If my kids decided to take their own laundry to a laundromat and wash it themselves - I'd happily pay $2K to see it.

      What probably happened here was that the laundromat offered WiFi that someone camped on for a long enough period and with enough content to attract the authorities. And, since the laundromat owner didn't have the sophistication to filter out leeches who put him in the original bind, he probably also didn't have the sophistication to dodge the piracy bullet. In any case, why offer free anything if you don't know what you're offering?

    19. Re:Binge is dead by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      Lol, I am pretty sure that I seen Green Acres on Prime.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  5. Hard to compete with free by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Hard to compete with free

    1. Re:Hard to compete with free by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Well, once you have a Netflix subscription, it's also "free" for the month, in that "all you can watch" sense. So, the question is, is YouTube making inroads among people with a Netflix subscription.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  6. YouTube puff piece? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    It sounds like someone at YouTube reached out to somebody at Venture Beat and spoonfed them some PR sound bites.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:YouTube puff piece? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, maybe not. Notice that they don't mention what percentage of viewers in those "emerging markets" watch youtube with adblock. Aka youtube might have the penetration, but, it might not be making any more money than paid streaming services.

  7. Why should you watch Netflix *more*? by urdak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unlike Youtube, Netflix doesn't get paid (by advertisers) by the amount of time you watch it. A person, like me, can be happy with his Netflix service even if he watches it "just" 30 minutes a day, and even if this person spends other time watching youtube, or, god forbid, sleep.

    For me to remain a happy Netflix customer, it doesn't need to swallow up more of my time or compete with Youtube. It needs to continue to show me things I *want* to see (it needs to increase the amount of content it has - especially "older" movies and series, not just new made-for-Netflix content), it needs to remain ad-free (respecting my time) and it needs to remain cheap, and needs to remain convenient (watch on my phone, watch offline, etc.).

    By the way, Netflix could fairly easily steal Youtube's thunder, by allowing popular content providers (e.g., those already successful on youtube) to upload content which will be shown on Netflix, in return for $0.002 per view (I think this is about what Youtube pays the content uploaders). People will still use Youtube to listen to illegally-uploaded songs, but to watch original content, ad-free, they could go to Netflix.

    1. Re:Why should you watch Netflix *more*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A Netflix section of "Community Videos" would be a fairly interesting idea. Basically a competitor for Youtube Red except instead of subscribing to a service with mostly low production cost content you're subscribing to a service with mostly high production cost content and getting your low production cost content ad free as a bonus. I could get behind that.

      Of course, hosting community content is easy. Policing community content - not so much. Youtube has invested a fortune in their content filtering and flagging algorithms and tried a dozen different ways to keep egregious videos from being hosted on their platform with middling to moderate success. Granted, Netflix wouldn't have to worry about pleasing advertisers as their service is ad-free, but they'd still risk public backlash if they unwittingly hosted offensive content and it garnered a lot of views. And if the history of Youtube has shown us anything, it's that there's always people out there willing to abuse the system in order to spread their messages of hate and violence.

    2. Re:Why should you watch Netflix *more*? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Good points. I might watch more Youtube than Netflix on any given day, but I'm not sending Youtube any money, and I sure as hell am not watching any of their ads. The fact that I watch more of Youtube doesn't benefit them in anyway.

    3. Re:Why should you watch Netflix *more*? by swillden · · Score: 1

      If you prefer to pay and not get ads, you can get that on YouTube as well. https://www.youtube.com/premiu...

      The two aren't really direct competitors IMO, though. I use both, for different kinds of things.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Why should you watch Netflix *more*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have some kind of affiliate code we should use, shillden? Or do I need to update my adblocker to filter out your helpful posts?

  8. Who'd have thought? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    People prefer free content, even if it's crap?

    TV should have been a hint.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Youtube's advantages by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the main advantage of Youtube is that they do a much better job of pushing stuff you want to see. You can subscribe to channels and then they show you a list of all tne new stuff in your channels each day. You can sign up for notifications so you never miss a new video. They can recommend new channels to you based on channels you are interested in.

    Netflix seems to be terrible at promoting the content on their service. Every day I go on there and see the same shows and movies being pushed for months at a time. Sometimes I'll go exploring and find that there are great movies on there that they just never tell you about, even if I've watched many similar movies.

    The only way to find these movies, especially when viewing in an app is to search by title, but almost nobody searches by title because so many movies just aren't there. When I want to find stuff they aren't pushing, I go to the web interface, where you can click on the name of actor/director/writer and see all the other content that they have for that person. This feature seems to be absent from the apps, and it's kind of a shame, because there is plenty of good content on Netflix, but much of it is impossible to find.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Youtube's advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youtube's advantages:
      1) it's free
      2) A lot more selection. Netflix's videos can sometimes be found in the $1 bin at WalMart.

    2. Re:Youtube's advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix stopped really trying to do personalized suggestions - imo their current model revolves a lot around promoting their own content, and promoting content based on their contracts (e.g. cheap per view or content with a minimum spend)

    3. Re:Youtube's advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Netflix seems to be terrible at promoting the content on their service. Every day I go on there and see the same shows and movies being pushed for months at a time

      My experience with Netflix says it gets a whole lot better if you spend some time actively curating your suggestions.

      I'll fairly regularly go through my suggestions and down-vote things I know I'll never watch (like the dozens of Indian movies that show up from time to time). That makes them go away, and new things bubble up. Over time, you weed out the crap you are never going to watch anyway.

      I have two different profiles for me (entirely different kinds of content for different moods but I don't want the two overlapping), one for the wife, and one for the two of us. Over time I've ended up with crazy sections like "Cantonese Language Action Films" to get some great old school martial-arts films.

      If I spend 20-30 minutes once a week going "nope" or "maybe" ... either adding to my list, leaving as is (not in my list, not voted off the island), or saying "nope" and never seeing it again ... what I find is suddenly things that I really do want to watch show up in my list.

      If you spend some time doing that, suddenly you end up with a much better list, and occasionally I'll see something new and watch it almost immediately.

      If you aren't down-voting the stuff you'll never watch, Netflix will just think you might be interested in it. That little thumbs down rating is the best way to clear out the stuff you'll never watch anyway.

    4. Re:Youtube's advantages by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      I didn't even know youtube had a paid version.

      My brother sent me a youtube link the other day on some documentary about chimp memory vs human memory and our evolution. Really interesting stuff.

      I see it is only episode 1. Episode 2 must be worth a watch. I click episode 2, and you have to have youtube premium. I didn't even know it existed.

      Much less how I'd find this kind of full programming vs all the other random youtube stuff.

      That will definitely be a challenge for youtube.

    5. Re:Youtube's advantages by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I think the main advantage of Youtube is that they do a much better job of pushing stuff you want to see.

      Not in my experience. Like most guys, I have absolutely no interest in Adele’s music - but YouTube seems to think she’s my favorite singer.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Youtube's advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't thumbs down meant to represent you watched it and didn't like it? Netflix had a distinct not interested option 5-years ago but removed it.

    7. Re:Youtube's advantages by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      I think this part of the problem. They have removed all ability for me to rate movies effectively. It's all thumbs up or thumbs down. There is no way to tell them I liked one movie more than another, simply that I liked them both. The star rating system made so much more sense. I still don't understand why they got rid of that.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    8. Re:Youtube's advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't thumbs down meant to represent you watched it and didn't like it?

      No idea what it's "meant" to do, but if I see something I have no interest in ever watching and immediately give it a thumbs down, it goes grey and then disappears from my suggestions forever.

      I use it as the "no, I don't ever wish to see this in my list again", and cull out the stuff that I simply don't care about ... like My Little Pony or other stuff I have zero interest in.

      Used as the "I do not care and do not wish to see this ever again" is very effective to prune out the shit you don't care about.

      Once you give it the thumbs down, other things will come in and occupy the slot, and your list of things you might actually want to watch gets significantly better.

    9. Re: Youtube's advantages by houghi · · Score: 1

      They used to push things I wanted to see. Now they are good un thing I already saw, channels I already follow an utter crap tey want to push, because 1MM others already looked at it, because it was pushed..

      I now watch the chanels I am suscribed to and now they started with "availavle in 6 hours, so I miss even those".

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:Youtube's advantages by sinij · · Score: 1

      I think the main advantage of Youtube is that they do a much better job of pushing stuff you want to see.

      Opposite here. No matter what I seem to search for on YouTube they want to radicalize me. If I want a talk on specific subject, they immediately start pushing most extreme versions of expressed viewpoints. Consequently, I make a point to regularly wipe history and cookies on any device where I watched youtube.

    11. Re:Youtube's advantages by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      That's because those are the movies that don't cost as much for Netflix to carry.
      The big content companies detest Netflix's payment model ("$15/month for all you can watch? People spend that much on tickets for ONE movie at the theater!"). They hate Netflix in general, blaming it for their decline in DVD sales (due to cheap rentals), and now that they compete directly with Netflix in streaming they want to kill the company completely. So, high prices.
      They also charge huge amounts that Netflix couldn't pay unless they double/tripled/whatever subscription fees. The content companies want pay per view. That's why you can rent a low-rez version on Youtube for "only" $3. They're betting they can get a ton of money from you in the long term, at least a lot more than with Netflix.

  10. YouTube ? No, thanks... by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    ....I cannot resist to the call of a good book. This beats anything Netflix could offer to me.

    1. Re: YouTube ? No, thanks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh godI wish I was so smart and humble as you!

  11. Subscribers seems like a bad metric by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I subscribe to a number of channels on YouTube.

    But how often do I watch any of them? Maybe once a month. Certainly not every time they publish.

    Just because you are subscribes does not mean you are going to watch - and because of the short form there, it's pretty easy to ignore updates for even the slightest reason.

    I still do not see YouTube as competing with Netflix, because each has such different time profiles. If I want to watch videos for a few hours, I'm always going to turn to Netflix over YouTube. But if I have just some minutes free here and there I'm probably going to wander through YouTube a bit. Now I may end up watching longer but that was not intentional, so it's not like Netflix was going to get that viewing time anyway.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  12. Something else by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    but there are others who are looking for something else

    And on YouTube they find... PewDiePie and a million Fail videos (basically Americas Funniest Home Videos stretching out til the end of time).

    I'm pretty sure that is not what the remaining 95%, according to your statistics, seek...

    You figures also do not explain why Netflix subscriber counts keep going up. Seems like maybe you have that percentage reversed.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Something else by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      PewPewDie is about 0.00001% of total views on Youtube. Youtube has 1.8 billion unique users per month. Netflix has about 137 million. Total fail on your part, but I am not suprised.

    2. Re:Something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most of the times I've gone to Youtube in the past year was to see a movie trailer

    3. Re:Something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He made $12 Million last year from advertising, and had 19.3 billion views.

      According to your figures:

      He only has 1/10,000,000 of views

      10 million times 19.3 billion = 193 quadrillion views / 1.8 billion viewers = 107 Billion

      So you are claiming that each of Youtube's unique users watched 107,000,000,000 videos each on average in a year? It doesn't look like maths is your strong point, champ.

    4. Re:Something else by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

      Anyone watching the likes of PewDiePie is a drooling zombie who probably also wastes a lot of time on Facebook. The rest of us are enriching ourselves with how-to videos, learning new skills, scouring the site for videos where we can discover fascinating things about our favorite subjects.

      My only regret is that YouTube is way too much power concentrated in one space.

      --
      Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    5. Re:Something else by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Because, cough, cough, Google lies, pretty routinely, as do most tech companies, truth considered entirely an expensive option. I would not believe any numbers coming out of Youtube, just of partial interest. Shoving content on people on the Youtube homepage, making it seem more or less popular by cooking the numbers. I would trust Netflix subcriber numbers more because they would go to jail if they cooked those numbers to inflate share value. So can the Alphabet liars go to jail for lying about Youtube viewing statistics, no, so why trust any info coming out of any Google site, if no criminal penalty applies when they get caught lying, faking search, misleading statistics, why believe them.

      Google presented statistics, yeah interesting but you know what ever, maybe true, probably a lie but I would never bet on them being accurate, not ever. Neither can they, as their systems are forever in Beta, their forever excuse.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  13. Why not *both*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you watch Netflix *and* Youtube in parallel? As a good consumer you should be able to master that!

  14. Same thing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    PewPewDie is about 0.00001% of total views on Youtube.

    Same thing for generic cop/medical dramas on Netflix (I've never watched one and watch Netflix all the time), so thanks for undermining your original point there chief.

    Maybe it turns out the way the world works for most people is not how you are using it, or even how you describe it...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Same thing by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about Netflix, but what the employees (and most people like you) think are Netflix competitors. Most of the viewing public doesn't want to watch "CSI #232" or another another medical drama but that is what gets produced. But even Netflix original programming can't compete with Youtube, no matter how hard they try. It turns out that people want to watch non-Hollywood produced stuff too.

    2. Re:Same thing by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      I wasn't talking about Netflix, but what the employees (and most people like you) think are Netflix competitors

      HBO and Amazon suddenly have a lot of generic cop/medical dramas?

  15. Re:That is amazing by sycodon · · Score: 1

    If you've ever been on Netflix looking for some old movie from years ago, odds are you won't find it.

    It's a good bet you'd find it on YouTube for rent at $3

    For instance, Animal House Netflix History:
    12/01/2016: Added to Netflix
    03/01/2017: Removed from Netflix
    11/01/2018: Streaming Again

    It has been available on Youtube since forever

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  16. Neither one by DogDude · · Score: 0

    How about "neither"? I work and study and read. Netflix/Youtube is for the dummies.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Neither one by nwaack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So because YOU don't like it, Netflix and Youtube is for dummies? Not all of us are in school and/or like to read. Some of us have stressful jobs and kids, and very much enjoy those few precious moments when we get to turn off our brains for a bit and relax in front of the TV. But I guess raising children and being successful makes me a dummy, eh?

  17. Do I have to say it? by hardluck86 · · Score: 2

    Subscribe to PewDiePie on YouTube!

  18. Amazon Prime by crow · · Score: 1

    While the article is looking internationally, domestically in the USA the competition is Amazon Prime. Yes, I'm aware they're now branding Prime as it's own thing, but with so many people joining Prime for Amazon or Whole Foods shopping, you have many millions of customers who see the streaming service as a free bonus. If these people don't already subscribe to Netflix, it's now a harder sell, as they have lots of content available already.

    1. Re:Amazon Prime by guyniraxn · · Score: 1

      Prime has a far better selection, from former blockbusters to cheesy cult films that are magnitudes better than the low effort schlock that Netflix primarily trades in these days. I've been with Netflix for around 15 years continuously but I find myself watching Prime so much more. I still have the DVD service but even that is dwindling.

  19. I love the University of YouTube! by MpVpRb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I prefer learning stuff over watching yet another cop drama or soap opera
    I can attend graduate-level physics lectures by top professors, with great graphics and sound
    I can learn glassblowing, welding, knifemaking, machining, woodworking, and more
    Currently, I'm watching card magic tutorials
    Even some promotional materials are educational. By watching an ad, I learned about longwall coal mining
    And then, for fun, there's dead malls and Uncle Bumblefuck (AvE)

    1. Re:I love the University of YouTube! by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I prefer learning stuff over watching yet another cop drama or soap opera
      I can attend graduate-level physics lectures by top professors, with great graphics and sound
      I can learn glassblowing, welding, knifemaking, machining, woodworking, and more
      Currently, I'm watching card magic tutorials
      Even some promotional materials are educational. By watching an ad, I learned about longwall coal mining
      And then, for fun, there's dead malls and Uncle Bumblefuck (AvE)

      Of course, it's always fun watching people who got law degrees from the University of YouTube try to pull fast ones over judges and cops (aka "sovereign citizens"). Either their knowledge is out of date (I think one quoted from a law dictionary that was over 100 years old and was long superseded by later editions), or they somehow miss the tons of videos of them trying their tactics and failing.

      It's even more amusing when you can see the judge roll their eyes as "another one of those people".

    2. Re:I love the University of YouTube! by nwaack · · Score: 1

      100% this. YouTube know-it-alls are the absolute worst. A member of my immediate family is one of these people. He's unemployed and lives in a friend's basement, so he watches a LOT of YouTube and therefore thinks he knows everything about everything...and isn't afraid to bring up his incredible intellect all the f'ing time. It would be funny if he weren't so arrogant about it.

    3. Re:I love the University of YouTube! by retchdog · · Score: 1

      speaking of the "University of YouTube" and sovereign citizens, i found this one quite amusing: Lawyer Reacts to INSANE Lawsuit from Sovereign Citizen Law School Applicant.

      although this one isn't that good apart from the mockery and subject matter, i've found his other videos entertaining and interesting; I often listen to them in the background.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  20. That's Good News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd hate to think I'd have to start paying a monthly fee just to sleep.

  21. When you're competing with PewDiePie... by DrXym · · Score: 1

    ... you've hit the bottom of the barrel. You as may as well start broadcasting "Ow! My balls" for all the effort required to reach that demographic.

    1. Re:When you're competing with PewDiePie... by oic0 · · Score: 1

      Now days he's a cynical old man who craps on everything. Much more like a late night talk show host, except focused on internet related things instead of politics and celebrities. Its actually fairly entertaining.

  22. What did I do last night? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Well, one thing for sure, I didn't watch Netfix, because I'm not a subscriber. I watched Cable TV. Thinking that it's a choice between Netfix and sleep with no other options is just another example of their hubris.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  23. tl;dr vs essay by found404 · · Score: 1

    Youtube and Netflix are in two different categories. On the web, I often prefer summaries, tl;drs, bullet points. This is what Youtube is: watch a thing for a few minutes, access a news site, go watch another thing for a few minutes. I have watched lots of 4 minute movies on Youtube, for example, without losing my concentration on all the other tabs/apps I have running.

    Netflix is like a more detailed article. It forces you to dedicate more of your time. You often need to make time for it. Close all other browser tabs, close other running apps, grab a snack, immerse yourself... It isn't quite a book but in this age of short attention spans, it's the closest analogy.

    Youtube is entering the Netflix category with TV and Films. Netflix has not yet considered entering Youtube's playing field of video shorts.

  24. Youtube is radio for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I put in my favorite commentators talking on the background as I work or play games. It's radio. I'm not watching videos on youtube for 80% of the time. Which is sad because PSA Sitch among others make some excellently edited videos with delicious memes. When I'm not doing that I'm listening to some mp3 videos. I only put on Netflix when I'm in bed or the bathroom.

  25. YT has very diffrent content. by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Netflix is loosing all of Disney content, that's HUGE and a very good reason for parents to stop subing to NF. Disney is making its own channel and what i said was going to happen is now happening. DC made its own network 7.99 a month min,Disney will soon too, bet 10.99 a month or alot more. Cable TV was once Disney bread and butter everyone had to subscribe to cable TV higher tier server to get Disney or pay a sub like they do for HBO. Since people are leaving cable and went to Netflix well looks like disney,dc,and yes marvel is making their own too now add those to your internet bill and hmm starting to look alot like the cable TV bill isn't it. lol we ....will...never ...win
    Dare Devil was canceled,Luke cage was canceled.Iron Fist was canceled by NF because Disney pulling their content cant really blame them but now i don't have a reason to subscribe to NF except for maybe a month a yr. YT is no comp to Netflix, the content is very different nuff said about that.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:YT has very diffrent content. by Junta · · Score: 1

      Interesting part is I believe there was a point where Netflix could have better protected their position as 'source of video from any content provider' with Starz. Starz said 'we are willing to be an add-on' and netflix said 'no, we want a flat rate for all users'. Starz took their ball and went home and the precedent was set for all providers.

      So we are going to finally get that 'a la carte' we always wanted back in the cable days, and it's going to be expensive. If NF had been a common provider then maybe the incremental price for each 'channel' would have been lower, but since all of them are independently making their own infrastructure, the costs are going to be high...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:YT has very diffrent content. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The good thing, the silver lining.....a lot more good, high-quality and niche content is being created than ever before. And you don't have to buy all of it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:YT has very diffrent content. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      The loss of the marvel series sucks, but the rest of it isn't much of a loss that I can see. There just isn't that much mainstream Disney stuff on Netflix. Usually there is a Marvel movie or two and a couple of old movies. Disney runs their content like McD's does the McRib. They'll roll out a movie for a few years then lock it up for a decade before making some new release version of it on whatever the new form of media is. Of all the big IP companies though I think Disney has the best chance of making a go of it on their own, but it'll mean having to put a far larger portion of their stuff out at one time than they have traditionally done.

  26. THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL WE ARE COMING FOR YOU

    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  27. Competition is only part of the problem by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    The other big part is keeping material available that folks want to watch.

    There are so many older movies out there that I would like to see again, but none of them are ever on any of the Streaming Services.
    You can rent them via physical media, but good luck finding them as a streaming title.

  28. In many countries, you can't buy HBO w/o cable by tepples · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember the $15 dollars a month deal for IPTV-only access to HBO (HBO Now) is available only in a few countries. In other countries, viewers must first subscribe to a traditional multichannel pay TV package including other WarnerMedia channels, typically at $40/mo or more, before being allowed to subscribe to HBO.

    1. Re:In many countries, you can't buy HBO w/o cable by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      That could be true. I know it's available inside the US. But it's probably not available worldwide.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  29. Really want to see the Internet economy collapse? by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

    If you REALLY want to see the Internet economy collapse ... just wait until YouTube decides to open up an option to deliver porn. Then the entire Internet economy will become non-viable and things will collapse fast.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  30. Youtube's biggest advantage by Solandri · · Score: 1

    YouTube's biggest advantage is that anyone on the planet can make a video and upload it for viewing. As opposed to Netflix which only carries content created by an elite 0.05% of the population.

    YouTube's biggest disadvantage is also that anyone on the planet can make a video and upload it for viewing, meaning that there are a ton of crappy videos on it not worth viewing. How successful YouTube is thus depends, as you point out, on how well it's able to help viewers sort the wheat from the chaff. It's interesting that Netflix has actually moved backwards in this respect, dropping the viewer ratings for movies (probably at the behest of the majority of the 0.05% who make mediocre to bad movies, and were upset their movies weren't getting as many views).

  31. It's price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youtube is free. Netflix is not. Easy.

  32. Netflix's competition isn't YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are too many options on the Internet:

    archive.org, plenty of magnet links and streaming sites with ads and basically no copyrights.

    The last option is as bad to users as YouTube, because both of them show horrible ads, despite Adblock.

    The second option has always been there.

    The first option is legal, growing and has excellent out of copyright content than the networks, Netflix, Prime, YT or any other channel offers. And did I mention no ads, free and way better content?

  33. Youtube is too PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it harder and harder to watch Youtube for the most part. A lot of stuff is trash. A lot of it is blatantly made up made material. The pressure on the creators means even credible ones are forced to produce crap because of the bone crunching schedules they commit too.

    Some original, some old tv shows and movies that aren't available anywhere else, is about the limit for me.

  34. I have a youtube channel by Jastiv · · Score: 1

    I thought about making a youtube channel a while ago, and didn't bother. But now its pretty much expected that every single game there is even if its some open source thing in alpha has videos of it somewhere on youtube. So I decide, well, I can't really have a game and not have some kind of play through shown on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  35. competition? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    it's true that my tv watching is divided between youtube and netflix, but they are complementary and not competition, both serve different things to watch.
    and why would netflix care if i watch youtube anyway, i paid them already, no amount of youtube watching is going to change that.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.