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.
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).
Because everything is there for free. I made a playlist recently and had to download some of the songs from youtube because I couldn't find them anywhere else.
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
For a lot of people music is a background thing. Today Internet WiFi signals are stronger then most Radio Signals especially inside a building, plus they will already have a YouTube compatible device on them most of the time.
It is just more convenient especially if you are not expecting a lot.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The reason competitors have quality issues is because Youtube spends a ton of money on deploying data centers and they don't. Competitors can't match it due to the cost and Youtube is likely still losing money, but it doesn't really matter to Google because the data gleaned from it adds to their dominance in providing profiles to advertisers. It probably costs around $5 billion a year to run Youtube. Unless you have a business model to get that money back, you aren't going to compete.