I can't speak to all of the points but when it comes to video hosting - no you don't. Content creators can't move off of youtube since it's more of a discovery service than a hosting service and it has locked viewers into its platform - it doesn't offer any way for dailymotion, vimeo, nebula, acorn, amazon, netflix, twitch or dlive to promote videos on their home page and due to their enormous market share content creators can't survive on any of the other platforms.

And, again with respect to video hosting there are plenty of very valid competitors technologically - with respect to search if you secretly rebranded google to bing I doubt anyone except the most techie would notice a difference - they win in search because everyone "googles it" - they used to win because alta vista, ask jeeves, lycos and yahoo were all trash, but now there is legitimate competition.

In regards to video hosting; Should they? When you go to Mcdonalds, should they provide (or be force to) the option for you to buy a Whopper, if not, why should YouTube be forced to? Nothing is forcing users or content creators to use the platform, they simple do because they know that is where the customer base is, and user know that is where content is.

And I agree that most "common" users could use Bing and not know the difference, but then again that destroys the U.S's whole case of a "monopoly" market.

Twitch, however, seems to be doing great without being able to advertise their videos on Youtube.

This is more of a discussion of walled gardens than typical monopoly abuse.

I'm pretty sure Youtube will overtake Twitch as a streaming platform within a year now. They have implemented the features they lacked a couple of years ago like premium subscriptions for channels. And since they advertise streams in your watch next recommendations in youtube you will get a lot of spontaneous people watching them easily, while you only go to Twitch if you specifically want to watch a stream.

Some video game streamers on youtube reach 50k+ viewers regularly and donations of $10+ just keeps raining in with that audience. That isn't any less than top Twitch streamers, and the Youtube will only grow since it is so much easier for people to discover Youtube streaming than Twitch streaming.

So really I don't see Twitch being a major player in a few years. There is no reason for content creators to stay with Twitch once youtube gives them a bigger audience and more money.

I think you make a very good point. I would add that in the short to mid-term, Twitch could also grow thanks to the pie getting bigger. Video streaming, I believe, is far from having peaked.

I agree - I think twitch is really failing to support the pre-baked video content though and that's a good way to hook new viewers.

If you're interested in some tips on a game and search for it (maybe "In game X I'm having trouble on this level") chances are you'll get some hits from youtube of people running the level as a walk-through - twitch highlights don't tend to be as indexed or as accessible since the metadata about what's actually in the video is a lot weaker by default.

Those hits on folks looking for a walk-through will end up with some conversions to stream subscribers and I think that's why Twitch is really destined to struggle.

From what I've heard from most streamers - Twitch is not competitive. The account banning rules are a lot less clear and the monetization isn't up to the level streamers can usually pull in from YT super chats. Additionally I think there's a bit of an issue in the fact that a lot of creators (streamers as well) will end up posting highlight videos or stand-alone video content to supplement their channel (i.e. someone playing fortnite might put together a guide on how to scavenge efficiently for newbies) and that video can end up driving traffic to their regular steams - but it'll only do that if the streams and the video are on the same platform (so a stream highlight on twitch will get twitch stream viewers while a video on youtube will get youtube stream viewers) - with the discoverability of regular videos being much higher on youtube it puts youtube in a stronger position.

Twitch is a streaming service, not a video hosting service. The amount of views the vast majority of vods get on Twitch is abysmal, and by default those vods are only kept for a minimal amount of time.

Youtube is attempting to move into Twitch’s space with live-streaming, but Twitch is certainly not competing with youtube as a video hosting product. Vimeo is the primary competitor there, and I have no idea how good a job they’re doing really.

Exactly I didn't always use Google I switched to their products because it was better than the competition; I used to use Yahoo mail but it sucked, so I switched to Gmail. I used to use Ask.com but it gave inferior results to Google Search. I have tried Bing and it was inferior so I continue to use Google Search. I use Android because its more open then the competition iOS.

When Google is not the best I don't use it. I use Audible and Kindle not Google Play Books. I use a opensource pod catcher I like rather than what ever the google android podcast app is. I use Open/LibreOffice rather than Google Docs. I have Chrome installed, but can't remember the last time I opened it as I much prefer Firefox as my daily driver because its superior in the measures I care about extensions, customization, and privacy.

Google only has me a as a customer as long as they offer me better service, if they don't I go elsewhere easily.

> you as an individual have a choice if you want to use the services they provide.

How would the common folk avoid Analytics or Ads?

Google benefits from me even when I visit completely unrelated websites.

Ad blocking software is very easy to install. Also the EU more or less already gave this to us for free with GDPR.

Use duckduckgo

They are the definition of a monopoly -- quality of service in the search space depends on the number of users who use your service (search trend data and tuning for page rank information) and your ability to crawl the web (which directly correlates with your financial resources). Once someone is on top of that space, only gross hilarious mismanagement could result in them going below 50% market share.

I don't buy this argument. You, as someone up-to-date on technology, have a choice. But if you think that the average middle-to-later aged individual has the knowledge to make this choice and avoid their influence, than I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

But why is that Google fault? Short answer, it's not.

> strengthened by the fact that no other company can offer services (above mentioned) that match the quality of the product Google is giving.

This is somewhat similar to TikTok's situation. There's currently no other company that can offer services that match the quality of the product TikTok is giving. The US government's solution? Force ByteDance to divest unless it wants to get banned. This is Big Tech protectionism, perfected.

In the same vein, the US is going to force Google to break itself into fragments. This can also be seen as a Big Tech protectionist measure, because Google has no incentive to improve its monopolistic byproducts. In fact, it routinely kills them. Spinoff companies of Google will compete with each other and undoubtedly yield much better (and pro-consumer) products, no matter which way you look at it.