I hate what YouTube does and what they stand for (duh), but why can't any of the competing platforms offer a comparable service/features/reliability?
I think I get the basics—YouTube must require server space and a width and depth of broadband streaming capability that is mind boggling. Lots of money and infrastructure to support the sheer volume of data and streaming capability to hundreds of millions of viewers as a non-uniform output broadcast (different times, different progress, pausing/resuming, live, replay, etc—NOTHING like my local TV station beaming out ONE signal). It's pretty damn hiccup-free in terms of the tech. None of the competition compares, imo… yet. Is it just a matter of money? They're one of those companies I hate to be preferring so much.