Twitch revenue was 2.8 Billion last year. In what way does prioritizing more revenue mean they will achieve a viable business model when they're already generating billions.
Business types want you to think they're tidying up, but most are using this zeitgeist as an opportunity for greed and the chance to shift more power away from workers.
To state the obvious, total revenue does not tell you if a company is actually making money. If operating costs exceed revenue you lose money. It doesn't matter how much revenue you're making. Given the costs required to run twitch, they are likely still losing money, not making it. Losing money is not a viable business strategy.
I am aware that revenue is not profit, we are on HN after all.
While it is possible to run a company at a loss with extremely high revenue, contextually, you're making excuses for a company that could easily keep running with 2.8 Billion dollars yearly.
It's likely that after they extract more money from creators they will increase their spend more to maintain operating at a loss. At what point does it end?
If your claim is "2.8 billion in revenue is enough to run twitch profitably", I'd love to see the numbers backing that up. What's the cost of serving videos, acquiring advertisers, etc.
If you're making 2.8 billion in Revenue with no profit on a Twitch-like product, that's a you problem, not the creators problem. They already extract a ton of money from creators and generate revenue with ads. Twitch is spamming ads like it's TV in the 90's.
Without knowing the operating costs your sentence really makes no sense, this single number doesn't matter, what matters is its relation to the operating costs.
Business types want you to think they're tidying up, but most are using this zeitgeist as an opportunity for greed and the chance to shift more power away from workers.