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.""

Comments

Dvorak's Right

[MrCrassic]

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?

Re:Dvorak's Right

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I am enjoying it, but we have to keep in mind they can't live on venture capital forever. Trying to ignore the problem doesn't mean it's not there. Remember, people ignored the problem of no business model in the 90's to their own detriment, and the gravy train died and now I see a resurgence of the same attitude that brought about the dot-bomb.

At least Google didn't have such high per-user bandwidth and Flash licencing expenses. Whatever YouTube comes up with for a money maker is something that the user base must accept, I mean, Napster wasn't embraced once they had a business model and has been a money sink since then. The text ads for Google worked out, but as I remember, there was no fall-back plan if that didn't work.

In an age where alleged hardware enthusiast sites need a dozen ads on every page of an article, I have to wonder by what means YouTube is going to be sustained.

Personally, I would not mind paying for premium features like better encoding and a full-screen playback feature. Maybe they have a for-pay IPTV-like app in the works, if you don't pay, you get the four-inch window available now. I would accept that, but would enough users upgrade?

Worrying warranted

[shawnmchorse]

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.

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 .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.

Re:Worrying warranted

[British]

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.

The copyright violation videos are the only ones worth watching, and everyone knows it. If ALL copyrighted videos that had enforcement were removed, and out-of-business copyright holders of music videos had the plug pulled there, nobody would visit the site.

It's nice to have an easily accessible place to watch ultra-obscure music videos that take hours to download off of p2p networks and days to search for.

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid

[monoqlith]

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.

Re:Uh oh

[mblase]

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.

Re:Uh oh

[Ruff_ilb]

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.