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.""
Don't take it personally. If you don't want to install Flash, fine. Most people have no problem with it. And as far as I know, YouTube is catering to most people, not you.
Seriously, who cares?
I honestly think Slashdot should stop echoing everything Dvorak says. If this is "news for nerds; stuff that matters", I think we would expect a good technical analysis from the usability/accesibility/quality/price point of view of several online video hosting services, and a conclusion, maybe stating that YouTube is the best in the field. But, honestly, this guy is nobody and everything he writes is linked here. Even if he was a very good journalist, this wouldn't happen. Only from time to time we'd get a link to something relevant. If people are very interested in what Dvorak says, they will bookmark him. But what he writes is not worth so many links here.
My two cents.
A) who cares?
B) Google Video is better anyway. Youtube is just...... smells funny.
Because Flash is non-Free software, perhaps? That's why I don't use it.
Yeah, there's a lot of noise out there -- but if you pick through it, there are some cool videos, like this one where a 500KV switch generates a free-air Jacob's Ladder, or this one showing some cool effects of high-power acoustics on a semiliquid cornstarch mix.
I was even inspired to build a paper-clip motor and upload it. It's fun -- and free; what's not to like?
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
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.
--
Top Music Tones: Hourly updates of the top songs and albums
I'm talking about thinking something is funny and dropping the guy a dime, or a fiver.
At the moment there are rampant copyright violations on YouTube. Despite that, nobody is making money from putting up their latest fandub or compilation of movie shots. The instant they add a means for people to make money off of other peoples content the crap will really hit the fan. I can't see it happening.
Pre- and post- advertisements, paid video links, advertising info to your youtube account, preferential viewing, yes. Micropayments to uploaders... can't see it happening. Maybe there is a clever way to do it, I'm just not sure what it is.
At least Google didn't have such high per-user bandwidth and Flash licencing expenses.
Out of curiousity, does anyone know what those Flash licensing expenses actually are?
On one hand, I could see Adobe rubbing their hands together with glee at having a customer that has such a huge need of their proprietary technology.
On the other hand, just about giving any necessary licenses away to encourage the success of YouTube is probably the smartest possible thing Adobe could do. I know a lot of people who never bothered to install/upgrade Flash, but have to watch videos on YouTube or one of its competitors. This kind of web site seems to be the first "killer app" to drive people to Flash in a while.
"MarketWatch columnist John C. Dvorak tells the public to stop fretting about YouTube's business model and just start enjoying the functionality"
Functionality? What functionality? Since I don't use one of Macromedia's three approved operating systems, I can't watch any of their videos. Maybe if they decided to use something other than a proprietary video format, I might be able to. Hell, even patent encumbered MPEG4 is freer than this crap!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
//"In other words, Dvorak is occasionally useful and mostly harmless, wheras Coulter is occasionally harmles and mostly terrible."
Amen to that, Dvorak is a grumpy old fart like me, but harmless, whereas Coulter panders to the most dangerous extreme elements of US society. Apples and hand grenades.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)