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

Uh oh

[ereshiere]

Now that YouTube has Dvorak's endorsement, how long until it collapses?

Re:Uh oh

[Grant29]

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

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

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

[HotBlackDessiato]

...Even if he's off a bit sometimes

Sometimes? Sometimes? Are you sure that's the word you want to ascribe? People with worse judgement than Dvorak have been summarily ignored for the rest of their life. Why he hasn't yet is a peculiar lag....intrinsic to his place of work(and a whole subject in to itself)

Re:Uh oh

[Baloo Ursidae]

...he's really on the mark. Even if he's off a bit... Yeah! And a stopped clock is right twice a day. Unless it's a military issue or public transit clock, then only once a day.

Re:Uh oh

[HotBlackDessiato]

People with worse judgement

Obviously I didn't proofread my own post. Should read 'better judgement'. That's right, I just took responsibilty and corrected my own mistake. Read into that as much as possible please.

Re:Uh oh

[Buffer490]

Who is Dvorak? He is referenced on /. every time he farts, and I can't quite understand the hysteria, I'm afraid.

Ok. He's a columnist. Erh, enough of them around. Right? He "understands IT". Eeeerh, the stories of him referenced in this forum begs to differ. He make wild claims of "up beat" themes, but really - doesn't bring anything new to the table other than an - coloured - opinion? Hey, I wan't that job!

Just - please - shed some light on why I have to read through 4+ articles/references of him every month through /. - I have a grandmother with the same amount of insight which I can too inherit from if I'm lucky... It just seems like time more well spent...

If you tell me he's the Luke Skywalker of programming, I have to - of course - reevaluate him against my grandmother ;-)

Re:Uh oh

[HotBlackDessiato]

The internet's "star figure" system is broken.

Re:Uh oh

[Hyperx_Man]

I think Dvorak is very good. He may not be good at predicting technology, but he knows how to use the media to get himself very well known. His controversies are such that they attract a vertical of media outlets, from the Wall Street Journal to the lowly local paper in Bum F*ck Egypt.

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.

Re:Uh oh

[badasscat]

Who is Dvorak?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a n00b among us. Be gentle.

John Dvorak is not "just" a columnist, he's probably at least among the original columnists of the computer world. He's been writing for PC Magazine for as long as I can remember, including during its heyday when it was basically the reference of the industry.

For a few years during that time (and maybe even still), he had a column where he did nothing but throw out one-sentence predictions. Back then, he would have written something like "by next year, Apple will have switched to Intel CPU's" and people would have gone nuts on him. He made a lot of really outlandish predictions, but for a while it seemed like almost all of them were coming true. So people started paying attention. If you wanted to know where the industry was headed, no matter how unlikely it seemed, you read Dvorak. He got a lot of props because he made those true predictions that nobody else would make. Everybody else in the PC industry - even in PC Magazine - was very conservative about where the industry was headed at that time. They thought the industry had matured and was basically immune to further major upheavals. Dvorak knew better.

Of course, nowadays, he's basically a troll. He still throws out the occasional insight and has the occasional correct prediction, but over time he's morphed into the guy who just says outlandish things to get web site hits. This probably happened because of all the hate mail he used to get about his off-the-wall predictions. Over time, he seemed to grow to like playing the maverick. It wasn't his intent to do so originally, but now he's basically just playing a role. He's intentionally trying to incite.

So, these days you read him and take what he says with a grain of salt. Or just don't read him at all. But there are good reasons why there are people that pay attention to what he says.

Re:Uh oh

[WindBourne]

Sadly, this guy has not been correct on something for near to a decade, except when he is one of the last to be jumping on it.

Re:Uh oh

[yoder]

//"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.

Re:Uh oh

[WilliamSChips]

Dvorak is occasionally useful and mostly harmless

So he's like Earth?

Re:Uh oh

[Phroggy]

Thank you. I'm glad someone else understands this.

I'm fairly certain it was a Dvorak column, back around 1994ish or so, that suggested that instead of using version numbers, software vendors should just use years, like car manufacturers do. Well, look what happened - not everyone does it of course, but starting with Windows 95 (still referred to as Windows 4.0 at that time), a lot of things have been named with a year instead of a version number.

Re:Uh oh

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

"People with worse judgement than Dvorak have been summarily ignored for the rest of their life"

since he posts on the internet, is kinda hard to stop him from speaking. and big as internet is, there's always people who likes to real a good ol' troll for the entertainment value.

heck, there's people who reads slashdot at -1 threshold...

is this kind of people who links dvorak on slashdot, digg and others. they're just spreading the fun. read dvorak as you'd read a satire and have fun.

Re:Uh oh

[htnprm]

Unless it's a 24 hour clock...:-)

Re:Uh oh

[cyb97]

On the other hand, most of the year-versioned software gets released in a different year from what it's named after, which kinda makes it like a version number afterall, it's only got a few more digits.

Re:Uh oh

[Marcos Eliziario]

Actually, that's why Microsoft quit using that system for Windows. After they ran all project simulations, they came to the conclusion that Windows 2666* would not cut very well into the christian market, so, they renamed it to vista, which is a farsi word that means "delivery to fscking far away". *(The actual target date for vista delivery among MS project managers)

Re:Uh oh

[JohnnyLocust]

I really think the world needs to pop Dvorak's nipple out of their mouth and start thinking for themselves. We needed him 20 years ago when nobody knew what a computer is, but this is the 21st century, and many things have changed. When we live in a world where a 12 yo girl can be sodomized by the RIAA, even the most modest of people look at every little legal repercussion that come of what they do online.

Re:Uh oh

[Simon Garlick]

Unless it's a fried digital clock, in which case it would be showing 88:88 and thus NEVER right.

Re:Uh oh

[swillden]

whereas Coulter panders to the most dangerous extreme elements of US society.

No, no, no. Ann Coulter is GREAT! You just have to realize that she's not a political pundit, she's a comedian. Once you figure that out, you'll love her.

Re:Uh oh

[amplusquem]

Wasn't Dvorak also the man that criticized Apple for using a mouse, saying that there is no reason people would want to use one?

Re:Uh oh

[dbIII]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a n00b among us. Be gentle.

Perhaps they are just from outside of the USA - after all what overseas PC magazine would consider paying for the privilege of reprinting Dvorak's articles?

Everybody else in the PC industry - even in PC Magazine - was very conservative

This could also be read as everyone else had to have their work looked at by an editor before it went to press - which has prevented others from making the "systems idle process is eating my CPU" comments that Dvorak gets into print.

Re:Uh oh

[saned]

Who is Dvorak?

He's qwerty's brother, iirc

-P@

Re:Uh oh

[Dausha]

"Dvorak isn't libelous or hurtful, for the most part, wheras Coulter almost exclusively is."

Except, you can't libel public figures, whom Coulter targets.

Re:Uh oh

[WilliamSChips]

Which also happens to be the same system cars use.

Shocking revelations

[Anonymous Coward]

So, cashflow, profit, or business model really aren't such a big deal, so long as you can get lots of "eyeballs". This is a fascinating and innovative model-- so innovative, in fact, I might be inclined to call it an entire "new economy"! Moreover, there's apparently a new site called "youtube" which is very successful! Further shocking and forward-thinking revelations in John Dvorak's column to come in the following weeks:

1. "Reality Television" shows will soon be very popular.
2. George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is sure to be a big hit in the upcoming election.
3. New company "google dot com" may be poised for success.
4. Will the Y2K bug be fixed in time?
5. Islamic terrorists: Might they be up to something?

Re:Shocking revelations

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Oh mod points, please give me mod points ....

Rich.

++++1 funny

Re:Shocking revelations

[Gli7ch]

And you have no sense of humor.

Re:Shocking revelations

[Marcos Eliziario]

Hi Mr Dvorak, looks like you've just found an exciting new thing: Slashdot!! are you going to talk about it tomorrow?

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?

Re:Dvorak's Right

[HotBlackDessiato]

I think that Dvoraks' right on this one.

While it's logically feasible he's right, it should at least cause some caution for YouTube investors that he believes in their venture.

Re:Dvorak's Right

[Mongoose Disciple]

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.

Re:Dvorak's Right

[rapidweather]

I discovered YouTube, browsed through some music videos, and came up with this blog post.

I hope you enjoy the video as much as I did.

Some of my screenshots feature the girl in the video, Mana, as wallpaper.

Re: Dvorak's Right

[KURAAKU Deibiddo]

You might want to browse the internet a bit more...Mana is a man. He was famous for crossdressing while in Malice Mizer and while modelling certain of his fashion product lines.

Re:Dvorak's Right

[gaspyy]

I think the only licensing costs are for Flash Media Server (or whatever it's called now) - which can serve live / streaming Flash video. Of course, if they batch convert AVi/MOV to FLV offline, then there's no need for the server. The cost for the convertor (Flash Video Encoder or a third party tool) is trivial.

I can't think of any other licensing costs.

Oh no

[77Punker]

Now he's doing videos? Nobody wants to see his ugly face. It's bad enough that his articles end up here.

..and Slashdot Love Dvorak..

[Pharmboy]

...but for the life of me, I have no idea why.

Re:Hey, everyone! I'm John Dvorak!

[Anonymous Crowhead]

hmmm... Something was stripped out of that post. Not much though, because there's not much substance in Dvorak's articles.

oh great

[mgabrys_sf]

Now they're totally fucking dead. Either him - or getting on the cover of Wired seems to be the worst omens you can get. Although being on the cover of Businessweek isn't great either. EH KEVIN?

I think you mean pseudo, not sudo

[unterderbrucke]

Silly American schools. :o

Re:I think you mean pseudo, not sudo

[Anonymous Crowhead]

Hey, I'm ovbiously out of it right now. Yes, when I hear psuedo, I think sudo. It has nothing to do with phonetics, I just use sudo a hundred times a day and pseudo once a month.

Re:I think you mean pseudo, not sudo

[MichaelSmith]

I thought sudo was just a shell for running pseudocode. Damn now I will have to start doing it in my head again.

Re:I think you mean pseudo, not sudo

[19061969]

Really? I thought it was pseudo that was the shell for running sudo-code?

Oh dear, I need my dried frog pills. Quick!!!

Oh Dvorak!

[Jboost]

Geez, who let Dvorak out of his cage?

Some sites require endless forms to fill out. Others, such as copycat newcomer Metacafe which cannot even transcode the ubiquitous MOV file, are useless for personal digital cam vids.
Other sites have weird limitations or do not provide embedding code. It's one thing or another.
One of the community video sites for "citizen journalists" wants the hapless user to transcode the video themselves before uploading it. Most people don't have a clue how to do that. Even Google can't get it right.

Youtube: founded February 2005.
Metacafe: founded July 2003.

And QuickTime files do not work well with YouTube, most of the time you end up with poor audio/video synchronization.
Another great article John!

Re:Oh Dvorak!

[sjwest]

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.

Your Perspective Is Stupid

[monoqlith]

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?

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid

[middlemen]

Seriously, who cares?

Some people are sensitive to Flash, and no these are not the Flash software creators or users like you, but the users of x86-64 processor machines who run a 64-bit Unix-based OS and a 64-bit default Firefox browser which does not run Flash, who have to jump through hoops to make Flash run if at all (and not those wimps who are so desperate to see flash that they run a 32-bit OS on their 64-bit system). The AC is right, why bother ? You can live in your comfortable 32-bit world for a couple more years pal, then all processors will be 64-bit and you will not find new 32-bit x86 machines anymore on the market.

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid

[mikolas]

I want to install Flash, but it is not available for 64-bit Linux.

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid

[monoqlith]

The AC said he refuses to install Flash, not that he can't or that it's hard to install Flash. By the time all processors are 64-bit I assume that a 64-bit version of Flash will have been released.

I was just rebutting the sentiment that many "power-users" have that the world should somehow always accomodate their whims even if their whims aren't those of 99% of people and are almost completely irrelevant given the context. I don't think I can think of a reason why YouTube not supporting people who don't want to use Flash is somehow morally wrong. They're giving you something practically for free - you can meet them half-way if you want to enjoy the benefits.

You might as well say - I refuse to connect to the Internet, YouTube only distributes video over the Internet, why should I upload videos to YouTube?

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:Your Perspective Is Stupid

[badboy_tw2002]

Dear Sir:

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

I am Dr. Huggins T. Boddingswhether, The Rodham-Clinton-Gore Professor of Internet Debate at Phoenix Online University. I'm here to tell you that in my years (4) of deep research into the topic of Internet Debate I've yet to see an actual argument won on any topic in any forum in the world.

Until today.

You sir, have taken Internet Debating...nay, HUMAN HISTORY to a new level by succinctly following up your argument with "end of debate". This revolutionary phrase-surely to be on the lips and fingertips of every persnickety angry "Netizen" as they dryly close their arguments of Star Trek, Scientology, and Operating Systems with a thick fingered prod and a wheeze of breath to paraphrase your pithy turn- this phrase will usher in a new era of Internet Debate where arguments can be WON! Don't you see? Don't you see my good man! We can finally have answers!

Kirk vs. Picard
Linux vs. Windows
Jesus vs. Buddah

Its all here, all here! I reel from the possibilities, and bow to your incredible wisdom.

Humbly Yours,

Dr. Huggins T. Boddingswhether

p.s. Enclosed is a certificate of "Noteworthy Achievement" Please use at your discretion.

p.p.s. FAG

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid

[monoqlith]

To crystallize: the response that I made to *your* comment was arguing against *you*, and as far as I know you are not the top poster. Refer to my original reply, the one marked "Your Perspective is Stupid." Moreover, the top poster seemed to imply an entailment between bullet 3. and 4. meaning he can't watch YouTube videos, so therefore he doesn't want to, and then followed it up by saying "Why should I upload videos to YouTube?" as if it was YouTube's duty to accomodate his decision to not install Flash or convince him to use YouTube. The answer seemed self-evident: you shouldn't upload videos to YouTube if you don't want to.

Again, my reply was "If you don't want to install Flash, fine." That's your choice. So this whole argument is built on a straw man - basically framing the argument as if I said that you shouldn't be refusing and that you should download Flash to download YouTube videos. All I said was YouTube doesn't have to cater to you personally.

The word "coerce" has a connotation of forcing someone into an unfair agreement. More weakly, it has the connotation of compelling someone to enter into an agreement. In that sense all agreements are coercions. If YouTube forced you to download an open source, free player to enjoy its content, that would be a coercion too.

Users are being "coerced" in the sense that they are being offered something by YouTube - namely free content - at the same time as being compelled to agree to download the free Flash player to enjoy this content. The Flash player runs on all three major operating systems - Linux, Mac, and Windows. Are you unhappy about this "coercion?" Who is losing anything in that transaction, besides the people whose choice it is not to install Flash? It's not really YouTube's failing if they would rather guarantee cross-browser compatibility by choosing a standard interface that is guaranteed to play inside 99% of browsers, stably, and well, and by choosing how their content is delivered - that is, via a reliable, quick, cross-platform, easy-to-use streaming Flash application. That would be one of the great draws of YouTube, after all. Its flash player.

You have to decide what you're arguing against. Are you suggesting that YouTube should switch away from Flash to accomodate your decision not to use Flash? Fine, then you also have to convince the 99% of people who are willing to download Flash that using Flash is not good for them. If you are just saying that you refuse to install Flash, good for you. It's not YouTube's responsibility to accomodate you.

Dvorak on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Dvorak on Slashdot

[hotdiggitydawg]

He's hardly a nobody. And 95% of the time, the headline-grabbing drivel that he writes is met with the response it deserves by the Slashdot community. I suspect links to his articles continue to be posted to Slashdot because (a) controversy is entertaining, and (b) it gives the community an outlet for flaming etc. so they can keep the quality of responses to real articles higher.

Remember: everyone on this Earth serves a purpose, even if it is merely to serve as a warning to other.

Re:I have a different perspective...

[EGSonikku]

Any particular reason for #2?

If you are worried about flash ads just use adblock in firefox and you get the positive aspects
of flash such as youtube, without the negatives.

Beyond that if you refuse to use flash you can't really whine about inability to access content.

Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

A) who cares?
B) Google Video is better anyway. Youtube is just...... smells funny.

Next thing you know...

[monoqlith]

Stevens will be talking about how the internet is not a dumptruck, but a series of YouTubes.

Re:Next thing you know...

[monoqlith]

The horse came back alive, so I had to beat it to death again.

Re:Next thing you know...

[TubeSteak]

And now you have a "Horse 2.0"?

Re:I have a different perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Flash is non-Free software, perhaps? That's why I don't use it.

Well,...

[Duhavid]

I dont recall having said I adore Dvorak.

Why Slashdot.. why?

[Locke355]

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?

Re:Why Slashdot.. why?

[phasm42]

Yes

Re:Why Slashdot.. why?

[Firehed]

You haven't dvorak.org/blog listened to dvorak.org/blog TWiT recently, have dvorak.org/blog you?

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

[Threni]

> . 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.

Does it matter? Clearly they can't be expected to check every file manually, and I believe that the US DMCA act makes the host not accountable until they're told about possible infringement, at which point they can simply pull the video - job done.

Re:Worrying warranted

[__aadkms7016]

The screen that shows at the end of a youtube video now points to a few other videos you'd might like. It looks like some of these are marked "commercial", and thus I assume someone paid for the link to be placed in the video. I could see how this could make money.

Re:Worrying warranted

[mpcooke3]

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.

They'll run adverts, and it will be very profitable.

And Google knows it.

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:Worrying warranted

[Silverlancer]

If companies were serious about copyright, websites like AnimeMusicVideos.org would have been dead years ago. Most companies don't seem to give a crap, and even fewer care if someone takes a short clip of their content. See the thousands upon thousands of Family Guy clips on YouTube, for example.

Re:Worrying warranted

[Pharmboy]

Short clips can be covered under Fair Use. Sometimes. They key here is that these companies are not being injured by the use, and it actually results in higher sales of their products (short clips of Family Guy = more DVD sales + more TV viewers).

This doesn't mean they won't go after YouTube once it starts making MONEY off of it, as then everyone will want a piece of the pie. I don't think that day is soon, however.

Re:Worrying warranted

[mpaulsen]

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.

Sure. They burn a bit of cash everytime someone watches a video, but they'll make up for it in volume.

(yeah, I know... old amazon.com joke.)

Re:Worrying warranted

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Does it matter?

Their major draw is centered on pirated content and comeons for porn sites, and they don't have a cash positive business model. What do you think?

blip.tv

[Anonymous Coward]

all the alternatives are bad and flawed??? You must be kidding or have never heard of blip.tv. they are a great service and are helpful beyond belief. heck... even cnn uses them for video transcoding and uploading.

Thanks, John

[Infonaut]

Since there are already about 54 zillion people using it, I'd say the public is unconcerned. Analysts like to speculate about YouTube's business model, but everyone else is already using the service. It's good of Dvorak to give YouTube his stamp of approval. Doubtless they'll see a noticeable spike in traffic from all of those people who were hesitant about using YT: "Gee, should I check out this link to a YT video of some kid singing in his underwear? Crap. I don't know. Dvorak hasn't weighed in on these guys yet. What to do, what to do?!

Re:I have a different perspective...

[barfooz]

A little ad-hominem there? Flash and JavaScript are by and large used to push ads. I agree with his sentiment.

Re:I have a different perspective...

[Dynedain]

Beyond that if you refuse to use flash you can't really whine about inability to access content.

Replace "flash" with "Microsoft Word" and I think you'll understand some people's sentiments... having done some Flash work, there are some benifits to it, but as with any proprietary technology, some downsides as well, especially when things become entirely dependent on it.

It *is* cool.

[FlyByPC]

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?

Re:It *is* cool.

[evilviper]

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.

All of which have long been available elsewhere, in MUCH higher quality, in non-propritary formats you can play on any system, and with decent performance.

If Google Video would just improve their interface, so it's as easy to find (free) videos as YouTube, I suspect they'd die quickly.

I don't like youtube that much

[erichschubert]

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.

Re:I don't like youtube that much

[funfail]

Are you serious? Try clicking the rightmost icon at the bottom...

Re:I don't like youtube that much

[Joel from Sydney]

I've got a 1600x1200 screen, and the videos are pretty small. I havn't found a way to zoom them.

Check the bottom right corner of the YouTube player, where it says "Size". Click the right-hand button to play the video in full-screen.

Re:I don't like youtube that much

[Neoncow]

How is google video harder to use? I like the the fact that you can double click on a google video and it maximizes to fill your screen. I also like the way you can pause the video by pressing spacebar. Google videos scanning capability seems to be more granular as well.

(I don't know about embedding, but it seems youtube has the market there)

Re:I don't like youtube that much

[erichschubert]

The one that does nothing?
Guess YouTube then is just incompatible with the popup blocker my browser has (like any sane browser)?

Re:I don't like youtube that much

[erichschubert]

I read that *uploading* to Google Video is harder.

Re:I don't like youtube that much

[dbIII]

I've got a 1600x1200 screen, and the videos are pretty small. I havn't found a way to zoom them.

"CTRL ALT +" if you have a few resolutions set up in X.

Online-only

[RealGrouchy]

My only beef is that you have to be online to watch the videos. For a month, I had access to a computer at work with no sound, and a computer at home with no internet.

Nevertheless, I love spending hours watching the Daily Show and Colbert Report clips!

- RG>

Re:Online-only

[trashbat]

If you have Firefox, try VideoDownloader to download the streams.

Re:I have a different perspective...

[Goaway]

A modern world where you're not going to use youtube, and none of us care one bit if you don't.

Re:I have a different perspective...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Some of the videos have links to actual video files. I tend to use them instead of Flash because Flash is quite slow on my computer, but mplayer is not.

Give Dvorak articles a category, please!

[jesterzog]

How long until Slashdot can get a category for articles by Dvorak? I'd really like the opportunity to be able to filter his stories from my front page.

Re:Give Dvorak articles a category, please!

[atrocious cowpat]

Cool! What should we use for the icon?

A keyboard?

Free bandwidth!

[pkulak]

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...

Where's the money

[MikeRT]

They're reportedly losing over $1M a month now due to increasing bandwidth needs. I seriously doubt that AdSense is going to work for them. They are going to need to put in some good, quick advertisements into their videos and they are going to need to start hiring a small army of people to watch video submissions and check for copyright violations.

To put it euphemistically, they have their work cut out for them.

Hi John!

[Anonymous Coward]

How long have you been calling yourself 'Grant29'?

Re:I have a different perspective...

[flooey]

Why would I upload video to a site like youtube?

I feel that I can say with confidence that you are not YouTube's target audience.

Most video on YouTube isn't exactly original

[Animats]

Most of what's on YouTube seems to be from commercial content sources, usually movies and broadcast TV. I'm surprised the MPAA hasn't shut them down.

Most content seems to be recompressed, and badly, with huge blocky artifacts.

Here you go...

[cp.tar]

DRIEDFRORGP1/4LLS

Re:I have a different perspective...

[Goaway]

I don't care if you use youtube or not. However, mocking you is great fun.

Re:I have a different perspective...

[zakezuke]

# youtube uses flash
1. I refuse to install flash
2. I can't see any of their vids
3. I don't want to see any of their vids

As for 1, you can grab the videos independently of the flash software.
http://www.dubayou.com/mytube/?u=about:blank

I "imagine" someone can build a handy dandy mozilla plugin and pipe the video to your handy dandy player. That would be mega useful.

As for 2, see 1.

As for 3, it's your loss. While there is a ton of crap on you tube, there is also a ton of stuff including Anime Fan subs, funny television commericals, and music videos. It's highly compressed, but if you can't find something anywhere else, you take what you can get.

Two things YouTube could make money on.

[MindStalker]

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.

Re:Two things YouTube could make money on.

[OverflowingBitBucket]

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.

why?

[Gerzel]

Why do we care what Devorak thinks?

Just because he has a keyboard style named after him why does this make his thoughts worthy of Slashdotting?

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking of August Dvorak- same namesake, wrong person.

adcritic

[smartin]

I'm not exactly sure of the name but there used to be a site called adcritic that hosted commercials. Now I know that everybody is proprietary about their stuff, but isn't the purpose of a commercial to get itself infront of as many eyeballs as possible? Youtube certainly has problems with copyright issues, but I have to wonder, does maintaining some sort of ownership for your work always have to mean scraping a few pennies from everyone that views it? Or is is possible to let people enjoy what you''ve done with the understanding that you made it, and still own it.

That's what Dvorak already says

[wyoung76]

The only thing he doesn't mention is the copyright issue, which I agree is a big issue the "analysts" on Wall Street don't seem to be worrying about.

Dvorak's angle on YouTube is the ease of use versus its competitors, and he as clearly says "no matter what happens to YouTube".

I wonder if you even read the attached link, or just read the submitted summary...

Dvorak's importance

[JasonTik]

An honest question, as I dont know too much about him:

Why do we care about Dvorak? What is his significance?

Ew! Wash me off!

[SlappyBastard]

What the hell do I do now? I agree with Dvorak!!! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Re:I have a different perspective...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:I have a different perspective...

[hugzz]

carry on then. I assume your car is completly open as is your mothers basement? and the streets you walk on? Otherwise how do you know there isn't a bomb in there someplace?

Huh? I dont know what kind of car you drive, but yes.. I am able to pop the hood and see exactly how my car works. And, if I see something that looks buggy (or could be done better), I can replace/change it myself. If I was going to buy a car and the engine bay was filled with epoxy to stop me poking around, then I wouldn't buy it.

Functionality? What functionality?

[Brandybuck]

"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!

Re:Functionality? What functionality?

[thebatlab]

Here's to you Mr. I'm-going-to-wine-because-i'm-in-the-vast-minority man:
Pops

Re:Functionality? What functionality?

[ardor]

The problem is:
There is no alternative to Flash Video.
ALL other media players are flawed, freezes the browser while loading its components, or crashing, and taking the browser right along with it. This is especially true in Linux. The Flash Video player never crashes, never freezes the browser, it just works. MPlayer plugin? Crashes a LOT. gxine plugin? Starts a new gxine window, which is an insanely STUPID idea, and also crashes a lot. Kaffeine starts a new window, too, but at least doesnt crash. The totem plugin is very good, but still unstable. The VLC plugin crashes.

Also, there is the licensing issue of course.

In Windows, its a LOT better. Windows Media Player, while being bloatware and just plain ugly, works (and does not open a new player window....). For those who want a lean player, Media Player Classic is there, and provides a plugin, too. And it just works, too.

I would love to see a STABLE, non-freezing plugin that loads almost instantly, is lean, very usable, and streams perfectly. On the server side, a useful theora-stream server (since mpeg4 and avc are not free as in MONEY, they are not that hot for noncommercial stuff).

One other thing: are the FLV specs known? If so, it should not be impossible to write a new plugin (or extend current ones) for FLV video playback.

Re:Functionality? What functionality?

[Fruit]

Use http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php to extract a direct link to the FLV source movie. Then use mplayer to play it. A bit of a hassle, but it works.

Re:Functionality? What functionality?

[Sleuth]

See, now that's why I read /. This is hilarious. :)

Just to chuck in my few comments

[goldcd]

First off - I'm convinced YouTube will 'make it' (myspace won't, which I'll leave for another day).

YouTube simply 'works', I know there's all manner of bugs and flailing codec conversions under the surface, but to a user visiting their site it works perfectly and better than anything else they've seen by a mile. If end-user made video is going to survive (and with bandwidth costs falling and broadband takeup rising, why wouldn't it?), then youtube will remain the gorilla.

As for the questioning of the business model, what choice did they have and where are they perceived to have gone wrong?

All sites start off grabbing eyeballs and then once the eyeballs have reached critical mass, you then ramp up the revenue. There's no choice here. You could create the greatest site the world has ever know - if you hide it behind a $10 signup screen, you're doomed. Nobody will ever show up.

One observation on youtube at the moment is that it's very low-res and web based. Maybe for a couple of dollars a month you could get higher-res video, automatic podcasting of your favourite people/top rated vids etc (even dump the sub and just stick an advert on the front of the clip). Clearly what they have at the moment is their attempt to get to critical mass - you don't think they're thought about making money? You don't think any of my suggestions have occured to them? Maybe you think they're not capable of delivering them? FFS.

Why is everyone hatin'?

[Killshot]

Why do so many people dislike this guy? I don't really know who he is aside from being the keyboard guy.. Based on this article, I liked what he had to say.. It's true.. YouTube got it right, and figuring out a business around it will come in time. So long ago Napster got something right, it made it easy to do something that there was a huge demand for. It wasn't so much that people just wanted free music. They wanted easy access to music. Later on, Apple figured out how to capitalize on it by giving people easy and cheap access to music and a slick gadget to play it on. I think it is good that YouTube is not rushing out to see how quickly they can make money from it, they need a little time to analyze it and make sure they don't ruin what they have built. Myspace is in a similar situation, trying to figure out how to become profitable without ruining what made it popular in the first place.

Re:I have a different perspective...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Otherwise where do you get off equating Free software with communisism?

Where'd he do that? All I saw was him ranting about the 'everything should be free' crowd which, frankly, needs to die in a fire. Slagging on someone for trying to sell or charge for a service definitely smells of communism.

Ignore Dvorak - PLEASE

[devjj]

Here's an idea: The next time Dvorak says something stupid, we just ignore it. It doesn't get Slashdotted - at all. Then we'll all know we beat him once. Then we do it again, and again...until one day, when Dvorak says something stupid, no one will know who he is. Dvorak is past his prime. I know it. You know it. He did great things, a really long time ago. Onto the next!

So whitelist the site already.

[tepples]

Guess YouTube then is just incompatible with the popup blocker my browser has (like any sane browser)?

"Any sane browser" will allow the user to whitelist pop-ups from YouTube.

The world is grey Dvorak...

[Assmasher]

...funny how when he talks about things they're always absolutes. This is crap, that is crap, this is good, that is crap. LOL. He sure loves the sound of his own typing... What's he really done worth making him the oracle he seems to think he is.

Yeah, all the other video services are flawed, there are no flaws in youtube...

Re:You're a moron

[cheekyboy]

What does Anti-American mean?

It means 'HATING the FEDERAL GOVT" not the people

Re:I have a different perspective...

[FrkyD]

yes.

YouTube owns you

[henleg]

By uploading your material to YouTube you automatically write over the rights of your material to them. So yes, YouTube is a funny service - I use it every day to find funny clips, but I'd never upload anything there, just because I simply don't want any copyright problems in the future and I don't want anyone to profit from my material just because they happen to host it.

Re:YouTube owns you

[tbird81]

Well, most people aren't worried about people making millions off flicks of their friends lip-syncing.

And if you're happy with the tiny audience you can get on your own server, and paying for the bandwidth, then you can do that.

Normal people don't really worry about things that have an infinitesimal chance of happening, it's really a wacky scenario. (Assuming you're not an awesome film director)

If people make much money off it, you'll probably make some too. If you don't put it on youtube (or similar), there's less chance of making anything. (Plus, it's only money)

Re:YouTube owns you

[henleg]

This isn't the issue here, the issue is that many aspiring artists and filmmakers gets robbed of their copy rights, without knowing they are - as they didn't read the (changed) TOS.

How long is you tube going to be around, though?

[Shipwack]

I've heard Dvorak discussing Youtube on the TWiT podcast with Leo Laport and others, and they all agree on two things. First, it is easy and fun to use. The second, their bandwidth bills must be astronomical.

So... where is the money coming from? They don't take down a ton of personal info to datamine (not even town or state). Even if they did, how much money can they make from that? There're no membership fees. Are google ads -that- lucrative? Eventually their going to burn through their initial funding... Not trying to downplay them, I'm just wondering what part of the picture I'm missing.

Fret?

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

I never fretted about YouTube's business model. How they make money is their problem...

Search for Pallywood

[blueZ3]

A very interesting video

Re:Hey, everyone! I'm John Dvorak!

[cogno64]

It will be interesting to see whether the bandwidth expense can get under control. Maybe with a frothy advertising market. In Internet Radio, the advertising market vanished in 2000-2001 and bandwidth killed the consumerization even though it was growing very fast...it became a 'feature' offered by portals like calendaring. Any downtick in advertising will make Google's advantage unsurmountable, methinks

Re:I have a different perspective...

[Wry Cooter]

I somewhat share that perspective. What YouTube really does, is popularize Flash for content that would be better served by something from the mpeg side of the media family tree. I would feel better about YouTube if they streamed, or allowed download, of some other media format.

It is a considerable pain to have to convert the flv to view in a preferred media player.