Slashdot Mirror
How YouTube's Domination of Streaming Clips the Market's Wings (wordpress.com)
New report from Midia Research firm looks at music fans' behavior in the third quarter of 2018. From the report: YouTube is the dominant music streaming platform, with 55% of consumers regularly watching music videos on YouTube, compared to a combined 37% for all free audio streaming services. YouTube usage skews young, peaking at nearly three quarters of consumers under 25. Although YouTube leads audio streaming in all markets -- even Spotify's native Sweden -- there are some strong regional variations. For example, emerging streaming markets Brazil and Mexico see much higher YouTube penetration, peaking at close to double the level of even traditional music radio in Mexico.
Indeed, radio is feeling the YouTube pinch as much as audio streaming. 68% of those under 45 watch YouTube music videos compared to 41% that listen to music radio. The difference increases with younger audiences and the more emerging the market. For example, in Mexico YouTube music penetration is 84% for 20-24 year olds, compared to 37% for music radio. Streaming may be the future of radio, but right now that streaming future is YouTube.
Indeed, radio is feeling the YouTube pinch as much as audio streaming. 68% of those under 45 watch YouTube music videos compared to 41% that listen to music radio. The difference increases with younger audiences and the more emerging the market. For example, in Mexico YouTube music penetration is 84% for 20-24 year olds, compared to 37% for music radio. Streaming may be the future of radio, but right now that streaming future is YouTube.
I still don't understand why people do this.
Most of them on there aren't even from the band. Just crappy fan uploads.
Most have bad sound quality. The music on my system sounds a lot better.
A lot harder to create a playlist. Or at the very least, a lot slower.
Video also burns thru a lot more data than audio if that is a concern for you.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
It's showing the market what society wants.
This is a good thing.
The title of this post is just a dog whistle calling on socialists to clamor for governmental regulation by know-nothing, paper-pushing, bureaucrats who fancy themselves to be Intelligent Designers. In our Universe, there is only Evolution by Variation and Selection, the most humane and robust form of which is voluntary interaction (i.e., a free market; i.e., a market free from the meddling of coercive, would-be central planners).
The reason Youtube is used is because there are no advertisements if you use an adblocker. Once Google closes that loophole it won't be as dominant. That is why Google lets people who use Adblockers use Youtube.
There wasn't any analysis of the survey, no commentary about the robustness of the numbers, just a quick blurb from the survey and how the EU Article 13 could be a good thing.
It was actively devoid of meaningful content. How the hell did this make through the queue?
Almost no one streams on youtube, they all have twitch.
You're a moron.
Google, the R+D arm of the NSA (yes, really- that is what Google was set up to be from day one), does many things better than the competition- and music on Youtube is one of these things. So, of course Google gets better figures for music streaming.
However, being a part of the Deep State Google has BBC-like unfair commercial advantages. The BBC is the PR front of Britain's intelligence services, and as such has a 'royal charter' that allows the BBC to do things no other COMMERCIAL entity in the UK could ever do. Google has the NSA Deep State equivalent 'charter' in the USA- and is thus fireproof against legal actions that would tear apart a true commercial entity.
As many outside oibservers note, Youtube is the biggest PIRATE platform on the planet. This fact has been used to leverage commercial arrangements with big music publishers who are forced to realise that playing ball with Google is the only way to go. And just as the BBC became the planet's greatest promoter of new music (on services like Radio 1), so Youtube becomes a fantastic promotional machine for back-catalogue music of all eras. Big music, when it learnt to embrace the BBC and Google's Youtube, discovered what it initially hated was actually to their great benefit.
Look how Hollywood initially tried to MURDER home video-recorders with massive bribes to US pol;iticians at the time, and then how much money this same tech eventually made Hollywood when their murder attempts failed (for once). The coke heads who run big entertainment biz are always short-sighted, unmtil new tech proves its value.
And 'entertainment' on the BBC and Google is the SUGAR that helps the real agenda- statist propaganda, control and universal monitoring, to go down. Orwellian Britain showed the way decades earlier, as always, but Yankland always catches up.
PS watched in hilarity as my bro at Xmas, with his house filled with Deep State spy microphones, tried to get any music he liked playing on Alexa this Xmas. And he pays for this sh-t. Meanwhile, I never have any issue finding great old classics to while away an hour or so on Youtube.
I understand the mindset - if there's no marketplace for new businesses, how do we get improvements over time?
The problem is that businesses aren't really valid laboratories for testing ideas. They fail for reasons unconnected to their base ideas more often than not, and VERY rarely engage in any actual forms of valid research anymore.
Individuals test ideas, and more specialized groups work on promoting those ideas - not really business in general.
In this case, Youtube is basically a specialized use of the very large pile of random computers Google houses en mass, in order to advertise to people.
It's like if you had a bazaar in your town, selling cheap knick-knacks at random prices - and then a big warehouse store came in, offering better quality knick-knacks for cheaper with less hassle for everyone, and less overhead waste.
It's not some great tragedy that a simplified business wipes out those businesses - perhaps a set of small regrets - but you're not going to lose much actual innovation because of that shift to better organization and efficiency.
Rather, instead of more rinky dink folks trying to hawk dodads, you get more rinky dink folks trying to band together make something that will be good enough to sell at the big store, or working at companies that already found a niche.
If you want innovation - then focus on actually rewarding innovation, not pretending like a market is going to produce it - markets only innovate on a fairly small window of short-term interests. Bring back actual research organizations as a part of the economy.
Pretending that you can innovate better than Youtube by just going back to a diaspora of yet more scammy small-scale operations - that's wishful thinking in my book.
You have to have a better idea tested and reliably scalable before it's worth crushing a working system. Youtube is horrible in some ways - but there's valid reasons folks want to use it more than most anything else.
Ryan Fenton
OK, it's 2019. I still see most competitors to YouTube stutter, break up, and lag with terrible buffering - news sites, Vimeo, VLC even, etc. Network quality simulators have been around for more than a decade; in general the pipes are plenty fast even if not uniform in capacity, and the browsers all all plenty fast now.
So, what gives? Is anybody trying? Is there anything available that can give even close to as good an experience as YouTube on a typical dodgy network connection? I'll encode the h.264 however it wants it and host it on a QUIC server if need be.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Generally speaking, if it's not a science related video I'm not watching it. The exception is Scotty Kilmer, he's awesome. Rev up your engines!
Ohhh, you mean commercial radio. Because that is all they seem to play. And when they aren't playing commercials, they are playing
1. a song I had heard 1000 times 25 years ago that I hate
2. a song I had heard 1000 times 25 years ago that I like, and I have
3. some awful dreck that makes me turn the channel or turn it off
When I listen to music, it is from my digital collection. If I want to find something new, I can find it on a few youtube channels I frequent. If I want to buy it, I will buy a digital copy - or in rare occurrences a CD - from online retailers like bandcamp, cdbaby, or from the artist directly.
I don't use any streaming services, I have no need for them beyond finding music worthy of downloading.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
YouTube is giant piracy operation that gets away with it. The business is trapped by that, they'll forever be trying to appease political masters everywhere because they're one tweak in US law from being bankrupt from RIAA lawsuits - and they'd lose every one. They're slaves to political masters and they don't know it yet. Scary.
the observation that the peer community is too effective at getting the word out about which products suck and which products don't
Without advertising, how does the "the peer community" learn that a new product is available in the first place?
Nobody ever made a bunch of money selling DVDs of music videos.
Except PBS, which has offered Animusic videos during pledge drives.
On the other hand, the labels in the RIAA are one tweak in US law from losing their own exclusive rights.
Most people think that using YouTube costs them nothing. Because YouTube was first to the party, and because they offered a treasure trove for 'free', many people adopted it very quickly, and there was virtually no opportunity for competition to develop before the monopoly was established.
I think ANY monopoly is bad - but this kind of monopoly is really insidious, because it's hard to fight. People pay for it with intangibles - namely their privacy and their consumption of advertising - so they don't think they're paying for it at all. That means that most folks never even think of YT as a monopoly. And many of those who DO think of it, don't see it as harmful, because after all, 'nobody who uses it is paying for it'. But there's a huge opportunity for more variety, innovation, flexibility, specialization, accountability, resilience - the list goes on and on - that's not being realized because there's no competition to spur it on.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Regulators?
In which country/s?
Because YouTube is a global issue...
YouTube usage skews young, peaking at nearly three quarters of consumers under 25. http://fakaza2018.com/video-do...
Is this a reliable source for this? The music industry has been trying to go after YouTube for music for a long time.
I feel like those numbers are getting twisted to say something that isn't going on. I have never witnessed anyone using YouTube for general music streaming. I have seen people use it to go check out a video or show it off or download it (yeh, they are right about that one).
Yes, I would believe that 55% of the people surveyed have watched a music video on YouTube. I would also believe that 37% have used another streaming service. But that's a long way from saying that half of all people listening to streaming are doing it on YouTube.
When I listen to music, it is from my digital collection. If I want to find something new, I can find it on a few youtube channels I frequent. If I want to buy it, I will buy a digital copy - or in rare occurrences a CD - from online retailers like bandcamp, cdbaby, or from the artist directly.
https://wapnigeria.com/about-us/