You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 5 Compelling Reasons Why The Youtube Shooting Has Disappeared From Headlines
Actually you argued there are other options therefor it is not a monopoly. My response was that all of those other options combined are a pittance compared to Youtube. You argued sites like Facebook and Twitter are competition. My reply was they do not serve the same user market. I ignored nothing and responded with facts to counter your arguments. As far as "statistics", you did no such thing. If you had bothered to read your own source you will notice Youtube is not even on that list, almost like they consider it a different user market... It is a media website, not a social networking site.
You argued with opinions and unsubstantiated statements, not facts. Youtube and Facebook overlap significantly in many ways even if the user markets are not identical. The point is Facebook (and other social networking sites) can be used to reach a large audience with video content. Just because Youtube is a media website does not mean that it is not a social networking website and just because Facebook is a social networking website does not mean that it is not a media website. Youtube did not start out as a social networking site but it added such features over time. Facebook did not start off as a media website but it has added video features including large video uploads and live streaming.
Youtube is a free to use video service. You have other viable choices with a significant audience, therefore it is not a monopoly. Even if the user base of these other services are smaller, they are still significant.
But for a more direct comparison with some actual numbers, according to Wikipedia Youtube has 800 million unique monthly users. Daily Motion, just one direct competitor to youtube, has 300 million unique monthly users. Obviously youtube is more successful but it sure isn't a monopoly. I don't agree that 300 million vs. 800 million is a "pittance". If you don't want to consider youtube a social networking site (it has all the elements so I don't know why it wouldn't be), then here is a list of sites that are video related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services (facebook is on this list too).
A couple of other's with significant traffic:
LiveLeak: 45 million+ unique monthly users
Vimeo: 100 million+ unique monthly users
Facebook: 2.2 billion unique monthly users
Then new services such as DTube and bitchute are popping up all the time. Their success remains to be seen (Bitchute already has ~30,000 unique visitors per day).
Incidentally, the definition of monopoly (according to Merriam-Webster) is: "Exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action". So it's more than just "most successful by a lot". So even if I agreed that those other options combined were a "pittance" compared to youtube (which I do not) then that still wouldn't make Youtube a monopoly.
Your argument seems to hinge quite heavily on the premise that all these other social media giants are competition for Youtube. I am sure you do this because you have looked at the numbers and realized how heavily Youtube dominates the market and therefore the only potential way to continue your argument is to try to lump them all together. They essentially provide different services, and furthermore Youtube is used WITHIN these competing services quite heavily. Just because you can subscribe to people and message them does not make it more social media than video media any more than Twitter is a video media platform because it can host video media.
Another convenient tactic I noticed you used was to limit your numbers to unique monthly users, because again you know the real numbers don't support your argument. The real numbers are not unique monthly users but video views, because that is how everyone gets paid, and since Youtube already dominates the market it is largely a matter of HOW LONG the users spend on the site, and Youtube dominates that in spite of your attempt to skirt around it. Lets look at the real numbers for their ACTUAL market competition: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of-leading-internet-video-portals/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/07/youtube-240bn-monthly-views-mcns
As you can see Youtube enjoys a 78.8% market share as of late 2016, with 240 BILLION monthly views. Essentially EVERY PERSON ON EARTH views an average of 34 videos a month. Arguing they don't enjoy market share domination is asinine. When using these statistics nothing else comes even close.
Well you found a favorable definition of monopoly to better suit your argument, but a monopoly is fundamentally a legal terminology with very specific definitions and standards. Lets examine them.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2
The two primary determining factors for designating a company a monopoly are:
(1) the firm has a high share of a relevant market and
(2) there are entry barriers... that permit the firm to exercise substantial market power for an appreciable period.
"If a firm has maintained a market share in excess of two-thirds for a significant period and the firm s market share is unlikely to be eroded in the near future, the Department believes that such facts ordinarily should establish a rebuttable presumption that the firm possesses monopoly power."
As you can clearly see Youtube fits WELL within the legal definition for monopoly regardless of the fact that legal action hasn't yet been taken against it. Youtube part of the parent company of Google enjoys quite heavy government support thru it's parent company Alphabet seeing as it had early investment in it from the CIA holding company called In-Q-Tel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
So, because of these government ties it not only enjoys a monopoly, but also government protection and special benefits, so it is unlikely to ever be challenged in court without significant public pressure. Thanks for the debate, it was interesting.
How is a video service like Daily Motion not a direct competitor to YouTube? As I said, not every social network or service covers exactly the same market but there is a lot of crossover. For example, Facebook can be a good substitute for some Youtube users without being a good substitute for every single one. And it's certainly true than many youtube users have facebook accounts and vice versa.
The web site you cited statistics from seems to imply that their numbers are based on visits: "YouTube's market share of U.S. video and multimedia site visits was 78.8 percent." contrary to your opinion that length of time spent on site is what matters. As such, those numbers contradict other easily found statistics (from Alexa and Wikipedia among others). At least in terms of unique visits. Conveniently, you have to pay the web site that you cited if you want to know where their numbers come from. What legally constitutes market share? Number of registered users, unique visits, total visits or the total number of minutes spent? From an advertising perspective (and that's how these sites make their money), unique views matter the most in my experience which is one reason why it is a separate statistic.
Also, I'm not using some hard to find "alternative" definition of monopoly. I'm using the dictionary definition. The first one. However, reading through the legal definition you posted, a company generally must have between 75 and 80% market share AND there must be "significant barriers to entry". I posted statistics from reasonable sources show that their share is below 75% (even discounting facebook and relying on more direct competitors) and even what you posted has them barely above the 75% minimum. But again, it depends on the legal definition of "market share" in this case. Legally speaking, who gets to decide what is part of youtube's market? The website you cited includes Netflix and Hulu. Well, if you are going to include those then why wouldn't you include network television and cable channels as well? And what about Amazon Prime? Or physical video sales and rentals for that matter? And what are the "significant barriers" to entry that youtube is putting up? There are none as far as I can tell as there are new startups all the time (the aforementioned Bitchute and DTube come to mind, then there is the new CBS pay service if you want to include that sort of thing).
Then there is the fact that they don't actually sell a product (other than advertising). Legally speaking, I'm not sure how that would play into a monopoly claim.
I certainly don't believe government should be providing any kind of protection or special benefits to Youtube but I also don't think they should be punished by them for being successful either. If all the people bitching about youtube would just go to another service then youtube's market share would decrease anyway.