Yes, it is. Start by offering unsustainable ad-free video. Drive competitors out and monopolize the market. Start turning the screws. Classic tech bro bait and switch.
But you yourself literally just argued the impossibility of it running ad free indefinitely. If you attract customers by knowingly offering a level of service at a cost you know with absolute certainty that you can’t maintain, then yes, it’s a bait and switch. It’s deception and manipulation. Classic bait and switch. Youtube isn’t special. They’re just Walmart.
And you’re just wrong. There’s no other reason to offer a service temporarily for free than to use it to drive out competitors. That strategy only has any value as a means of driving out competition.
I mean, as it grew the hosting/staffing costs went up as well. There’s no way it could have continued to be completely free.
That’s still a bait and switch though.
No, it isn’t.
Yes, it is. Start by offering unsustainable ad-free video. Drive competitors out and monopolize the market. Start turning the screws. Classic tech bro bait and switch.
That’s really not what happened. YouTube wasn’t created to drive out competitors and monopolize the market.
It may have ended up doing that, but a bait and switch is an intentional action.
But you yourself literally just argued the impossibility of it running ad free indefinitely. If you attract customers by knowingly offering a level of service at a cost you know with absolute certainty that you can’t maintain, then yes, it’s a bait and switch. It’s deception and manipulation. Classic bait and switch. Youtube isn’t special. They’re just Walmart.
And you’re just wrong. There’s no other reason to offer a service temporarily for free than to use it to drive out competitors. That strategy only has any value as a means of driving out competition.
But, sure, keep simping for the evil megacorp.