That might work for YouTube, but how many companies have the deep pockets of Google to ride it out long enough for technology advances to make their product profitable?
There is no way the vast amount of free, professionally made, high-quality content we have available online now continues without some sort of tradeoff in either cost, increased ad exposure, or reduction in quality. The transition period the internet is in right now has to end sometime, and I'm pretty sure it will come down squarely on the side of the content providers/producers.
Not too many, but we were talking specifically about YouTube, not some theoretical every-company. If you'll recall, my initial point in this thread was that it was kind of dumb to point to YouTube as if it were anything like a typical internet company.
And if you look at my original point, you'll see that I was trying to point out that not everything can stay free and ad-minimal forever.
I was simply using YouTube as an example of something that, absent of Google deciding to run it at a significant loss for 5 years (far from certain), will have to change its operating methods to something less pleasant to the consumer.
Where in our thread did I dispute that 'not everything can stay free and ad-minimal forever'?
The only thing I ever said was that YouTube wasn't a good example supporting your point, because it was in a completely different situation from most of the rest of the web, and that because of its unique situation, it actually could continue on at a loss for quite a while longer than most.
In other words, you were kind of right, but for the entirely wrong reason.
There is no way the vast amount of free, professionally made, high-quality content we have available online now continues without some sort of tradeoff in either cost, increased ad exposure, or reduction in quality. The transition period the internet is in right now has to end sometime, and I'm pretty sure it will come down squarely on the side of the content providers/producers.