Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak Adores YouTube
prostoalex writes "MarketWatch columnist John C. Dvorak tells the public to stop fretting about YouTube's business model and just start enjoying the functionality: "Since I like to run videos on my blog this turns out to be a great way to both transcode and save bandwidth since YouTube picks up the tab on the video stream. Would I pay for this service, yes. I have seriously looked at the alternatives to YouTube. With no exceptions they are all flawed.""
I think that Dvoraks' right on this one. YouTube will definitely suceed in the long run just like Google has. Almost every internet user loves a simple interface with simple procedures to get things done; YouTube caters to that, so everyone is happy. And it's nice to be able to capture something rare on video and then show off your skills to everyone. However, I don't think that many users of YouTube are very concerned about the business model end of it -- I think that they are enjoying functionality already. Do you really think that the average Joe User thinks about the monthly net profit as he posts a video?
I dont recall having said I adore Dvorak.
emt 377 emt 4
Why does Dvorak articles make it to the front page? His articles are obviously not 'stuff that matters' to anyone on this site. Is it to gain more traffic through "Dvorak is an idiot" posts?
YouTube is nice, no doubt about it, but it'll have to change radically to survive in the long term and I really don't see any way around that.
.com bubble already and we all know exactly where this is heading. The most we can do is enjoy the ride for now, while it's still operating.
1. A high percentage of the videos they host are coyprighted, and shouldn't be there in the first place. There seem to be extremely lax checks and balances on this.
2. They're burning through money and, so far as we've seen, don't really have a plan for how to stop burning through money.
Whether Dvorak likes it or not, we've all seen the
Sharing video sucks - even Borland featured on /. this week - hosted theres off there web site.
Year ago I wanted to host a video (copyrights ok, politics content, not porn either) it was 10mb, most sites thought this was too big unless i paid to host it, What he got 'right' was that while restrictions might exist many of the competitors to youtube are lame and are unusable.
I did not want to pay to host it,or use my hosting, but i understand where the muppet is coming from on this.
I too agree that flash sucks but the premise is mpeg hosting is not that good so until something better comes along its the best option for now.
Where is leaves videobloging and intel (- its promoters) well thats not my problem.
I've got a 1600x1200 screen, and the videos are pretty small. I havn't found a way to zoom them.
Video.Google.com may be harder to use and especially harder (if possible) to embed in your blog. But at least I can watch the videos beyond thumbnail size.
Also not every stupid thing is on video.google.com. Youtube is full of crappy videos.
Debian GNU/Linux - apt-get into it.
They're giving away huge amounts of bandwidth for free. If I stood out in the street and started handing out 20-dollar bills, there would probably be a line 4 blocks long in half an hour. I would have the most popular "business" in town! The growth would be exceptional! I'll worry about how to make money on it later...
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
You're not being coerced into anything. Growing numbers of people install Flash. A few people don't install the *free* Flash player because they have some superior view of themselves and refuse being locked in by *free* content providers who don't even have advertising revenue into a "DRM'd" "proprietary" - oh yeah - *free* software player.
You might have a point if YouTube charged for its videos. But it doesn't. You have no right to dictate how they distribute their content, and you also have no ground to stand on. If you want them to change, convince the 99% of people who are willing to "give something back" for *free* content and take two seconds of their time to install the *free* Flash player to switch to completely open, completely free software. Pick your battles, geez.
Why do people start ranting on and on about how *everything* should be free and open and then start blaming companies like YouTube who have to spend $1.5 million a month just to stay alive for not accomodating their unrealistic worldview when I suggest that maybe that's narcissistic and even stupid to think that the whole world has to accomodate your personal choice? Free, open source software has its place. As I said to begin with "If you don't want to install Flash player, fine" implying that it was your choice, but don't expect YouTube to bend over backwards to support your decision. Stop complaining.
Is Dvorak really that bad? Sure he's got some crazy ideas and predictions, but sometimes he's really on the mark. Even if he's off a bit sometimes, he does bring up interesting topics and new mindset ways of thinking about current events and trends.
You could say the same about Ann Coulter, but I'm still not prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Ok there are two things YouTube could really make some money one. The ability to pay to post clips longer than their current minimum (think its 15 minutes??). And the ability to tip a creator when you watch a video you like. No I'm not talking about paying for the right to watch a clip, if thats what you need put it on google video. I'm talking about thinking something is funny and dropping the guy a dime, or a fiver.
This could be a huge chance to prove microtransactions. YouTube you let you tip without having money, those tips could then stay 'pending' until you deposit money to account for all your tips. Of course you could prefill your account as well if thats what you want. As its your not actually paying before you watch the video a non paid for tip wouldn't really hurt anyone.
Using free software is good and should be encouraged but don't not use somthing just because it doesn't fit into your commie world view.
Oh, you're one of those dumbshits...
carry on then, I assume you never worked for an hourly wage? Never been paid on commission? Otherwise where do you get off equating Free software with communisism? Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, not private ownership of ideas.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Not quite the same thing... Dvorak isn't libelous or hurtful, for the most part, wheras Coulter almost exclusively is.
In other words, Dvorak is occasionally useful and mostly harmless, wheras Coulter is occasionally harmles and mostly terrible.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums