Why is that? Video streaming isn't the behemoth it was last decade.

Google owns the platform and the ad network / marketplace. A lot of videos ‘lose’ money and just take up space. Any viable competitor to YouTube would need a solution that allows signups, watches and video uploads, without requiring a fee. Which typically means displaying ads. For Google the ad network is already there. For anyone else, they need to either create their own marketplace, or have Google (or some other network) take a large cut of their ad revenue.

This is likely why the only other ‘competitors’ you see are peering based or based on a subscription model. Neither of which can really compete with YouTube which really doesn’t need to *directly* make any money

And how long do you think it would take until the competitor would end up in the same situation? How can the god help with it? And which god?

> And how long do you think it would take until the competitor would end up in the same situation?

YouTube ended up in that situation for two reasons. First, the original YouTube before Google bought it was playing fast and loose with the law and was in the process of getting sued over it after Google bought them. Second, Google wants to license Hollywood content for YouTube TV etc. So between wanting to settle the lawsuit and wanting to sell their soul and become Comcast, Google agreed to do a lot of this draconian BS that isn't otherwise required by law.

A competing service that just wants to be YouTube without being YouTube TV could plausibly follow the law without steamrolling the little guy quite as much.

So like dailymotion? Why won't people use that instead of youtube?

Partially because it kind of sucks, but maybe more because Google owns YouTube, has 90% search market share and heavily favors YouTube videos over other video hosts in search results.

Which means you need it to not suck or have some other countervailing advantage which is enough to overcome that, e.g. TikTok, but without the geopolitical issues of that one.