test113

I never argued that I was in IT/Tech; I deal with investments and PE. I have nothing to do with IT or tech. My point is we, in the PE/FO sector, are going to invest in AI businesses in 24/25, not only in the "B2C market" but mainly in the B2B market and for internal applications. Whether you believe it or not, it's gonna happen anyway.

In other words, media as a "service" makes more money than media as a one-point sale. Why should they sell you a one-point solution when the service model makes more money for the shareholders? I love the shareholder economy; it makes all our lives better and makes us focus on what really matters at the end of the day, which is, of course, profits for people who already have too much money. :) very cool

They have, but they are not in charge. Apple's goal is to make money; everything else comes as an afterthought.

Again, none of the people at this talk have anything to do with selling a product or pushing an agenda or whatever you think. There is no press, there is no marketing, there is no product - it was basically a meetup of private equity firms that discussed the implementation and impact of purpose-trained AI in diverse fields, which affects the business structure of the big single-family office behemoths, like an industry summit for the private equity sector regarding the future of AI and how some plan to implement it (mainly big non-public SFOs).

Sometimes people just meet to discuss strategy; no one at these talks is interested in selling you anything or buying anything - they are essentially top management and/or members of large single-family offices and other private equity firms. They are not interested in selling or marketing something to the public; they are not public companies.

It's weird how you guys react; not everything is a conspiracy or a marketing thing. It's pretty normal in private equity to have these closed talks about global phenomena and how to deal with it.

These talks are more to keep the industry informed. I get that you do not like it when essentially the big SFOs have a meeting where they discuss their future plans on a certain topic, but it's pretty normal that the elite will arrange themselves to coordinate some investments. It's essentially just the offices of the big billionaire families coming together to put heads together to discuss a topic that might influence their business structure. But, in no way is it a marketing strategy; it would, on the contrary, be negatively viewed in the public eye that big finance is already coordinating to implement AI into their strategy.

But feelings don't change facts. My point is if the actual non public big players are looking at AI in a serious matter, then so should you.

Haha, lol, whats happening why do you hate me, just sharing an experience, an opinion?

• it's not NVIDIA or AMD or any chip manufacturer, or someone who has a product to sell to you. Most of them are not even publicly traded but are organized in family office structures. They don't care about the B2C market at all; they are essentially private equity firms. You guys interpret anything to fit your screwed-up vision of this world. They don't even have a product to sell to you or me; it was a closed talk with top industry leaders and their managers where they discussed their view of AI and how they will implement purpose-trained AI into manufacturing, etc. It has nothing to do with selling to the public.

I have already said too much - just let me tell you if you think LLMs are the pinnacle of AI, you are very mistaken, and depending on your position in the market, you need to take AI into account. You can only dismiss AI if you have a position/job with no real responsibility.

So weird how you guys think everything is to sell you something or a conspiracy - this was a closed talk to discuss how the leaders in certain industries will adapt to the coming changes. They give zero cares about the B2C market, aka you as an individual.

Again, none of the people at this talk have anything to do with selling a product or pushing an agenda or whatever you think. There is no press, there is no marketing - it was basically a meetup of private equity firms that discussed the implementation and impact of purpose-trained AI in diverse fields, which affects the business structure of the big single-family office behemoths.

Nope, it's not possible. The only way it wouldn't be treason is if all states agree, or if they start a revolution and are successful; every other attempt would simply be treason. Hence, one nation indivisible. I'm sure they know that; they just want to push as far as they can to make the political situation even more absurd in America. They want to widen the gap between the people. I don't know who exactly profits from this situation, but it's not the American people.

Here's a video that explains it quite well: [Legal Egal] (https://youtu.be/1dhvry6E0jA?si=H62qIoiHzaLdJHQF)

Yeah, I know that, XD but why?

What makes it so that you think you should be able to get creators and their content, server capacity, and storage for free? Who should be paying for it in your mind? Who should eat the cost? The creators, the platform, or the user? or all of them to a degree? And who should be able to profit?

I think it's pretty clear that the end-user will carry most of the cost in the end.

YouTube cannot do that. YouTube's content legal system does not allow this.

That said, I use SponsorBlock and love it to the degree of finding it necessary depending on what type of content I am watching.

Why do people hate YouTube Premium anyway? I don't quite get it. I have had it since it was available in my country, and I love it.

Also, I have to say I use the YouTube Vanced app with SponsorBlock and custom layout (no shorts, no uploads, no etc.) and YouTube Premium subscription. I don't like the default YouTube app.

So, I don't know if I like YouTube or just the model and content/creators behind it.

I'm not so sure – YouTube is much larger than you might think. It's not the video platform you grew up with anymore. No one in this world can match the backlog and content density/diversity of YouTube, not even all streaming services combined. People complaining that YouTube is dying because a few YouTubers "retire" from their main gig or that it's not the same anymore don't understand how YouTube works. They might not comprehend that the time of their "bubble" has come to an end. When this happens, there are already five new bubbles/niches that are even bigger, and you might not have heard of them, but they are more successful than their "predecessor." The old bubble is still there to consume in the backlog. Someday in the future, AI will have a field day with the data accumulated via YouTube.

It is transforming, for sure, but I don't think it will destroy itself completely. In a sense, you can say it will destroy whatever view you had of YouTube as a platform because it is not what it once was.

To my knowledge, YouTube will hit the billion-user milestone this year (Netflix currently at ~250 million paid users). If we look at other data trends from streaming services, it suggests that YouTube will grow more over the coming years. I don't know how anyone can match YouTube as a whole. In certain niches, sure, but as a whole, it would be like fighting windmills. There's a reason no one tries to tackle YouTube as a platform and only goes for certain niches.

Stupid question: What's the point behind this? Is this actually financially viable for a company in the long run? Was this an attempt to get Reddit to crack down on those subs?

Isn't this always a fight against windmills? i.e., you can't fight a symptom without addressing the market as a whole?

I mean, if I were an investor looking at this, I would also get excited about making this change - much less risk, less cost, less customer support, etc., all for basically the same output in revenue. In other words, if I cut the small business (6% of value but over 100k accounts to handle) out of the model, I can make more money because the cost reduction is higher than the loss of revenue. And in the long run, when "big game customers" jump ship, I just downsize some more. I also don't need to invest but can be sure it will generate a certain amount of revenue, as long as I do not squeeze the relevant customer groups too hard. This strategy is very feasible and relatively risk-free. I am not a fan of it, but I think a lot of software companies will go this way after they establish themselves in a market.