This is really interesting for a few reasons. They are copying the same revenue split as YouTube. At the same time they have historically had a very different definitions of what constitutes a "view" and this is going to lead to some interesting arguments about ad pricing.

I am really curious to see what Facebook has that duplicates YouTube's very resource intensive ContentID platform for claiming copyrighted material and redirecting ad revenue to the claim owner. I also wonder how Google is going to handle the uploading of YouTube content onto Facebook now that there will be serious money involved. Relevant story about the phenomenon (I work for Fullscreen so this is my CEO talking): http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/facebook-video-piracy-f...

On a personal note I find Facebook's video API to be better (docs, reliability) than YouTube's.

I hate facebook videos with passion. Youtube videos are much better quality wise. Whenever somebody uploads a fb video that i like, I go ahead and look it up on youtube.

Plus, youtube works on the desktop, while facebook requires that you install a plugin (in 2015!!!).

I don't have any plugins installed, and Facebook videos play just fine for me.

That's interesting. Facebook just tells me all the time to install flash player on my pc..

Flash is a plugin.

I suspect there are a substantial number of people whose primary interface to "what's new on the Internet" is to check Facebook. Sure, there are better tools, but it's hard to argue with the "everything in one place" approach.

Youtube can easily cut off these partners if they feel fb is a threat. Is it worth losing the biggest audience for a couple more dollars per view?

No they can't. That goes against the US antitrust law. Likewise, Coca Cola can't tell a shop that they won't sell them their products if the shop also sells Pepsi.