Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo May Build Its Own YouTube
An anonymous reader writes "Re/code reports that Yahoo will soon be stepping into the realm of internet video. They're seeking to take advantage of complaints from users who make videos for YouTube that they don't make enough money for their efforts. Yahoo has told content producers it can get them a bigger slice of the pie. 'For now, at least, Yahoo isn't talking about replicating YouTube's open platform, which lets users upload 100 hours of content every minute to the site. Instead, it is interested in cherry-picking particularly popular, more professional YouTube fare. Yahoo has also told some video owners that it can use its well-trafficked home page and other high-profile real estate to promote their clips on a non-exclusive basis. After a year, one source inside Yahoo said, it might open the platform up further.'"
...in fact, forget the Youtube thing.
They're seeking to take advantage of complaints from users who make videos for YouTube that they don't make enough money for their efforts.
Lets hope they put in even more ads. I really like the unskipable 30 second ads before some shitty 15 second video.
If it's only for established professional video publishers, it's not really YouTube as much as Hulu. Or perhaps Yahoo has the right idea to fill the gap between YouTube and Hulu for the strongest YouTube Partners.
If it means i don't have to deal with Google+
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
Google is increasingly trying harder to get me to use my real name while browsing/commenting on YouTube, even though I have repeatedly stated that I do not want to do so. The sooner there's less abusive competition, the better.
For my own experience the quantity and length of ads on Youtube has reached the tipping point where I start dreading even going to Youtube anymore. It's fine to see a 5 second ad for a video I know I will enjoy, but the ads on the 'speculative' videos where I'm just hopping around looking for something interesting to watch are beyond ridiculous. The other day I watched 10 crappy videos in a row, all of which had at least a 5 second-then-skip ad at the beginning, and one with a must-watch 15 second ad. That totaled one minute of ads for what turned out to be zero seconds of entertainment.
Yahoob! Roll a doob, squeeze her boobs, gonna veg on the intertube!
Hey, lookout , here comes the lube, Microsoft hosting pr0n on a Bling Redtube!
Out of the grave, here comes it sista, hosting world access TV is Alta Vista.
Ibeen had to watch more ads, faster dates who masturbate on Iphone webcam.
They got you hooked, you always look, youve forgotten how to read a book.
To sit and dream and often wonder, to shit and smell and fart like thunder,
in your hand a mangled book, those days are gone, dont be mistook.
For now your droid does all the work and wipes your butt, while you jerk.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Holy 2005, Batman!
Google has a 9 year lead in this and they've been doing it better than anyone. How does Yahoo expect to compete in this space?
Honestly the one company I'm surprised HASN'T entered this space is Microsoft because their M.O. lately hasn't been to improve their core product offerings and give customers what they want, but to get into market segments where they see OTHERS succeeding, only to fail miserably (see: MP3 players, search engines) - even in cases where they once dominated the market then let it languish without further development because it hadn't hit critical mass yet (see: PDA/multimedia devices and Smartphones).
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I welcome them. YouTube needs a realistic competitor. Why I say realistic is because there are already a good bunch of similar video sites but they have hard time rivaling YouTube.
The YouTube support for both watchers and content creators is terrible. If there's a technical problem in the site, good luck contacting anyone. Same thing for video makers: your channel might get flagged as infringing (and thus closed) completely automatically, based on some random troll viewer doing the flagging maliciously. After that, sorting out the situation is rather painful.
Yeah, right there you have the biggest problem with yahoo.
It's not only Yahoo. Facebook reportedly has a similar "verification" process to enable extra privileges, and some sites using Facebook login require this verification, such as AOL's The Huffington Post. So does Google, where the privileges include Gmail and uploading longer videos to YouTube.
Hosts do more with less (1 file) at a faster level
That'd be true if the hosts file processor in operating systems were actually efficient. I proposed an implementation involving a Bloom filter on my page about efficient implementation of a DNS blacklist. But in the operating systems deployed on most deployed PCs, a linear search through a multi-megabyte hosts file takes a while.
(ring 0)
Whether a resolver runs in supervisor mode (ring 0) or user mode (ring 3) makes little difference. It's about how efficient the resolution is, and most resolutions take longer than a context switch. There's no guarantee that it actually runs in ring 0; microkernels hand off hostname resolution to a user-space process. One example of this across multiple platforms is running a recursive resolver on localhost. Another is the possibility of storing the hosts file on a file system implemented in userspace (such as FUSE, Samba, or the like). What this ultimately means is that a well-coded user-space resolver can query a hosts file faster than a popular kernel's built-in linear search can.
Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads and hardcodes favorite sites - faster than remote DNS)
One problem with hardcoding favorite sites comes when the IP address for a favorite site changes. That's what the expiry time on each record in a DNS zone was supposed to fix.
I agree that you have to start at the bottom and build a community if you want to build a solid following. Big name titles mean people will stop in, and forget the place even exists once the video is done playing. I know I did that for years with anything aside from Youtube.
Not only are they aiming at the wrong end of the spectrum here , the non-exclusive video hosting means that nobody will bother linking to their copy versus the Youtube version. They're both free to watch, but Youtube has the advantage of name and platform support. Why would you make your blog or Facebook post of a video *less accessible* to your readers when Youtube is more widely available as a native app on cheaper mobile devices?
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Actually, it's trivial to do so.
Running more than one computer? You have to manually edit the hosts file on every one.
Concerned with futureproofing? Google has completely bypassed the hosts file on Android 4.4. I expect the same "feature" to appear on Windows either in the next SP, or the next version.
Hosts files are sequential lists of entries: completely unsuited for random access.
Obviously, the superior solution is a local DNS configured to return localhost/your favorite cat video site/your favorite porn site/whatever for all of those scumbag domains.
APK is just caught in the 80s.
A long while ago Yahoo tried to compete with eBay offering YahooAuctions. Their heart wasn't in it, and they killed it off. The potential there was huge and because there is no competition, eBay has enjoyed enormous profits at the expense of anyone trying to sell stuff. The commission they take off every sale is huge. Yahoo could shave the commissions down just a bit and still make a healthy profit.
Oh, and it would be trivial for Yahoo to make a craigslist competitor. I wish they would. Heck, with flickr, they've already got the photo hosting set up. Users would be attracted by improved interface and excellent mobile buying and selling app. At present, Craigslist doesn't care about either of these things and deserves to be knocked off its laurels.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Google makes it REALLY hard to create accounts now that aren't tied to your real identity. Every time I try with nicknames and non-name handles, I get told there's something suspicious about my account (yeah right) and that they're blocking it.
If Yahoo doesn't try to make it a social tracking node (like the Google+ crap ruining the comments section), pays out well for hits, and provides a better interface for screening out the crap (low rated videos that get millions of hits based on a good teaser, duplicates, etc.) I think they stand a great chance of seeing a ton of videos migrate.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I prefer to post on Archive.org. The site can support different resolutions and can even run on Libre-based operating systems. Also, you don't have to worry about regional restrictions. For example, I may send someone a Youtube link to a friend in Germany, but she cannot view it due to region restrictions. However, an Archive.org link will work. I would prefer Archive.org as the place for original, independent video content. No ads, no stress.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
There already are sites like Vimeo that don't have the social-tie-in. Obviously it's not working like you propose.
Vimeo's guidelines require uploaded videos to be not only non-infringing but also the uploader's own work (permission is explicitly not enough) and without "commercial intent". Uncertainty around how those rules shall be interpreted makes me hesitant to recommend it as a general-purpose alternative to YouTube. For example, any video containing footage of a video game is banned if uploaded by anyone other than the game's copyright owner, which appears to rules out video game reviews that use footage of the game being reviewed. It also appears to be banned as "Product demos and tutorials" if uploaded by the game's copyright owner.