• ozymandias117@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    They didn’t have anywhere close to the infrastructure to compete with YouTube

    Based off earnings from before Twitter was purchased, they were making less money than Snapchat - and Snapchat is having to close down gfycat due to the cost of serving gifs - much less having the main focus be long form videos

    • existential_crisis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That doesn’t really matter, unless you expect the video feature to be unprofitable. With ~300m or whatever active users, it would not be hard to raise money if they need it to launch a major product like that.

      • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s 0 chance it would be profitable. They probably could have built it with a lot of external funding, but it would probably never have become profitable

        Google is still trying to figure out how to make YouTube profitable

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If he just brought over a few really big creators, he wouldn’t need all of YouTube’s infrastructure.

      OTOH, even just a tiny fraction of YouTube’s infrastructure is massive compared to what Twitter does with video. It’s like someone suggest that a newspaper start using his home printer instead of their printing presses.