Which is part of my point. If you find that nobody else can serve your content for as cheap, maybe that points towards the original host having a point in trying to find a way to pay for it.

> There's also a network effect that's developed on YouTube, and as much as I hate to admit it when I want to search for video content (reviews, how-to's, and a hell of a lot more) the first (and often only) place I search is in fact YouTube.

Well, I think we've had this problem before, and it was mostly solved with search engines. Google already returns Youtube and other hosted video content in searches. The only thing I think we'd really be losing is a more powerful recommendation system, but that's a small price to pay in my eyes.

> I'd love for there to be a proper competitor for YouTube, but truth be told I think it's easier to compete with Facebook.

I don't doubt it's easier to start a Facebook competitor. That said, I think its a lot easier to actually compete with Youtube, at least now that they are actually trying to monetize their platform. Creators have already been playing with other platforms, like Twitch. It only made sense to do so for a lot of people after Youtube started making specific changes and requirements of people that they chafed at. This announcement is both another option for creators, but also comes with it's own set of requirements. The minimum membership fee, for example, is quite a high, and some creators might find it's not the right price point for their audience. I support quite a few people through Patreon (not much in video though), and one of the features of that which I like is the ability to do specific amounts per month, or if the artist sets it up, an amount per item delivered, but with a cap. Some people will find this much more amenable to their needs, which is the market at work.