Youtube wasn't launched by Google, it was purchased.

Youtube launched 1 year and 8 months before being acquired by google.... It's largely semantics to say that what Youtube is today, isn't a direct result of Google's ownership for nearly 20 years now....

From talking to someone that worked at YouTube for 15 years, they still had a lot of core Python code in 2016 that was legacy from the OG company/team and that code needed to be transitioned to follow the Google way of doing things in C++/Go.

I don't think it was distinct enough from the Google culture like Android was at the start of the acquisition but it seems they had leeway to do their own thing.

Google had Google Video and couldn't hold up, that's why they bought Youtube.

What YT is now:

- ads every now and then

- addictive shorts no one needs

- suggested videos nobody asked for

- geo ban of videos

No concept of language in a user facing way. No filter by language no search by language. On the contrary searches are translated before running and return all languages, videos are dubbed even when you speak the original language, same but with titles being translated etc. Search being shit is kind of on par with being a Google product though. I wonder if they had any language preferences before Google bought them. I don't remember that far back.

Huh? It's not semantics to point out that a project wasn't launched by Google, when the point was about a successful project launch from Google.

Youtube survives on google's massive repertoire of products being vastly more profitable, not because it's the best of its kind.

And free bandwdith. Free bandwidth is nice.

Google definitely doesn't have free egress

Google owns the backbone. They definitely have free egress.

(1) There is no single entity called "the backbone." (2) Yes, they do direct peering with ISPs whenever possible, but maintaining on-premise cache AND the "backbone" is not a trivial matter, nor free

They're paying a marginal cost compared to us plebs, yeah, but definitely not "free", especially when YT is allegedly responsible for 1/6th of global internet traffic

YouTube has been profitable for a while now by itself.

And you honestly believe the main factor in YouTube success was the quality of the code?

That's a thought that doesn't even deserve further comment.

Did the promo process exist at YouTube's creation?

Good != Successful.

I assume that's why they wrote good and not successful.

It's an average software product with incredible scaling behind it and a lot of elbow grease to keep it chumming along, but it's not great software by the definition of "bugs actually get dealt with"

It's great software in the sense that it makes a shit ton of money though. In the end software that doesn't get used and doesn't make any money but has no bugs is not valuable either.

Not saying that this is the trade off you have to make but if you have a working mode in place that achieves usage and money somewhat consistently i can understand being hesitant about changing it to optimize for less bugs instead.

The only people for whom it makes sense to define "great" as "makes money" are the people who produce and sell said product.

Similarly, most people don't put much stock in the salesmen of a product describing their own product as great.

Stop debasing all of quality to profitability.

Surely the Therac would have made more money if they had covered up the deaths instead of fixing the bugs and owning up to them.

Why do you think they would compromise how good their software is merely to save lives?

That's just two different scales.

Weapons are a great product for weapon dealers and manufacturers as well, just not so much for the people killed by them (or their families, or survivors)

So sure, if making a shitload of money is the metric, YouTube is a great product.

That wasn't the point of the person you answered to though.