> This is what I don't get about YouTubers. They created a business with basically only one source of income.

More importantly, they also then decided to scam their source of income by getting money from other sources (e.g. Patreon) and are now acting surprised when their own data host isn't happy about not getting their cut of the revenue.

Reminds of a scam that cinemas attempted in my state - because the distributor wanted a % cut from movie tickets, they sold cheap tickets and then charged rent for 3D glasses required for a movie (e.g. 2EUR for ticket and 12EUR for the glasses). The distributors took their distribution rights because of that at all.

Trying to scam your most important source of revenue is just a really bad business decision.

How is it a "scam" to have other sources of income for a video?

The YT deal is that they take a cut of (ad) revenue to fund storage, cpu, bandwidth costs and profit in exchange for hosting the content.

Many of these content providers disabled the feature effectively making YT operate at a loss to host their video while continuing to use the platform.

I already have shown you other examples of these types of attempts which also didn't fly. You can't sell a TV in Walmart for 0.99$ and then have a hidden checque for 900$ in the box so you avoid giving Walmart their margin for the sale.

The problem being that "the YT deal" keeps being unilaterally changed by Google/YouTube.

First they adjusted the cut.

Then came the copyright strike system which stops the creator being paid and diverts all and revenue to the claimant automatically.

Followed by the adpocalypse whe your video will be demonitised for reasons only known to YT for being "advertiser unfriendly" with recourse taking so long you've missed the most profitable time for views (the first few days).

Then came the algorithm changes that decimated discovery which negates the huge benefit of publishing on YT (exposure).

Let's not forget just straight up not showing subscribers your channels videos (Remember to like and subscribe, and smash the notification bell!)

And each time YT reply with "I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further"

I can't think why creators would look to monetize their content with external sources.

The explanation I've heard from many of the Youtube "creators" I'm subscribed to is that Youtube have taken a larger and larger slice of the revenue cake on views over the years that creators have been forced to look to other income streams like Patreon, because they're just barely making any money on the platform anymore.

It would be great if YouTube let creators pay for hosting directly (just like other web hosts) if they wanted to maintain the ad-free experience for their viewers.

(YouTube monetizes directly with its viewers too: https://www.youtube.com/premium )

Yeah, it certanly would be great and it would IMO end up with a healthier ecosystem.

This explanation makes sense. I would only call it a scam if its against their TOS. Are these youtubers not checking the "paid content" checkbox? Or does that only apply to paid advertisement of the actual subject of the video?

Did Google ever offer an alternate revshare plan?

Generally I think many YT creators have multiple sources of income (ads, Patreon, merch, sponsored vids)--as such they have many "customers". It's their distribution channel that's locked up.

I totally agree, but there simply isn't a good competitor to YouTube, so they're stuck. I know LTT (Linus Tech Tips) have tried to divest their content so its available on multiple platforms, but the one they used that was paid and ad free shutdown cause it wasn't profitable. They've now set up their own I think which other tech YouTubers also use.

So some are trying to get away from YouTubes monopoly but many cant.

The channels do seem to split into other services on groups. Educational/explainer creators went to nebula (not sure who led that one), comedy/entertainment went to dropout.tv (from CollegeHumor), tech went to floatplane (from ltt), etc. There will be more of those and I can't wait to see who embraces/monetizes p2p first.

If their skill is to create popular videos, they did not had much choice. It is not like there would be other popular video services that would compete.

For many of them, it is youtube or nothing.

I don't know about hundreda of video hosting sites. I know aboit two: youtube and twitch. I tried something else maybe twice.

I am pretty representative for typical user. Typical user turns on yoitube and only things in there exists.

Typical users aren't relevant here. We're talking about Patreon supporters, people who gave money to a single creator and want an ad free video. They can click a link to vimeo.

But they need to know first. Who looks for something new on viemo? Sure if someone points you to them you will look, but do you go there just to see if there is anything interesting when you are bored?

Patreon supportes dont come from nowhere. They come from watching your videos and hearing "support me on patreon" one too many times.

What are the alternatives that actually offer a better experience? Vimeo, floatplane? Serious question. Because I would love to start spending some time at one.

You too most likely have many single points of failure. Just that it may not have come yet and hopefully never comes.