>>101264935When I say "people", I mean studios. If bandwidth gets cheap enough, studios can host their content on their own websites. 70% of Youtube's revenue comes from major brands, but those major brands are making scraps from Youtube's ad system and they hate it. For years they've wanted nothing to do with the site and the only reason they play ball is because they can't deny it's where all the kids are.
If UMG, Viacom, and whatever could host their own video without significant overhead and request a subscription fee for the catalogs of real content, it's what they'd do. It's what HBO currently does.
And if those large brands leave Youtube, so too does a major part of its income. They barely have any homegrown content that's worthwhile, and they've spent the better part of a decade killing off anyone who could make them something interesting. Rather than tapping into creative people and fostering an economy around independent art, they bloated Z-list nobodies who had enough time on their hands to upload a new video every day.
Z-list nobodies will post their work to any place that will take it, but the A-listers only do well on Youtube because there's a massive budget and tons of advertising already behind them. The A-listers can't actually live, nor grow on Youtube organically.
Youtube isn't the future, it's the past waiting to happen.
