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

[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

[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?

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?

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

[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.

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.

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?

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

[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

[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.

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: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?

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.

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?!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!