Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft's Video Site 'Soapbox' Disappointing

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the learn-from-the-tube dept.

nieske writes "CNet reviews Microsoft's new video site, Soapbox. Though browsing and uploading is easy, CNet isn't very enthusiastic about the beta, mostly blaming this on the fact that Soapbox has nothing more to offer than other video sites. From the article: 'It's a slightly better sharing service than YouTube in some small technical ways, but it doesn't help users make money from their content like Revver does; it doesn't have granular privacy controls like Vox; it won't post directly into blogs for you like VideoEgg; and it won't show videos from other networks like Yahoo Video. Given Microsoft's position in the video sharing market (dead last), I expected a more aggressive product.'"

3 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Microsoft & the Reviewer ... in General by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Informative

    However, if people want real ease of use, for sharing family photos and videos, then I would highly recommend DropShots. Although it doesn't have tons of features, its extremely simple. Just click on the icon in the system tray, then drop the files into the window that displays. I have my own hosting service, with Gallery2, and lots of space, but its was impossible to make an argument against using dropshots for my wife. It was just too easy, and too straight forward. No site I've ever seen has taken something to such a simple level. I know the concept is simple, and probably didn't take long for them to think up, however, I often wonder why nobody else has implemented a similar idea.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  2. Re:The Fruit, the Window & the Penguin by ElleyKitten · · Score: 2, Informative
    This LCD-ness is what Linux lacks (Ubuntu's getting close), right now it seems (again, in my opinion) that the sheer lack of open drivers for devices and PCI cards make this damn near impossible.
    There's a lot of drivers in Linux. I've installed Linux on a bunch of different computers, and pretty much the only things that aren't autodetected have been wireless. Now, I don't use things like webcams or dial-up modems, and I'm not saying Linux is perfect, but for a lot of your basic hardware Linux is already plug and play.

    Either way, I hope someone makes a distro where you never see the guts and it attempts to take advantage of any drivers, open or not. Not so I would use it but so that someone with less time on their hands might be able to.
    That would be Linspire. Mepis and PCLinuxOS and a few others also are good about not forcing you to mess with the guts.
    --
    "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
  3. Re:Microsoft & the Reviewer ... in General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "For Linux You needed to create a directory with the files you wanted to burn. Make a ISO image of that directory. then you can burn that ISO."

    That's one way but not the only way. You can drag-n-drop your files or select. Click burn ISO in K3B. In OSX you can even type, heaven forbid, in a shell:
    $ hdiutil burn [some_image.iso]