Slashdot Mirror


The Revolution Wasn't Televised: the Early Days of YouTube

mrflash818 sends this report from Mashable: A decade ago, Netflix meant DVDs by mail, video referred to TV and the Internet meant simple text and pictures. All that changed in about 20 months. ... It was hard to get a handle on what YouTube was, exactly. The founders didn't know how to describe the project, so they called it a dating site. But since there weren't many videos on the site, Karim populated it with videos of 747s taking off and landing. Desperate to get people on the site, YouTube ran ads on Craigslist in Los Angeles and Las Vegas, offering women $20 for every video they uploaded. Not a single woman replied. Another vision for YouTube was a sort of video messaging service. “We thought it was going to be more of a closer circle relationship,” Chen said in a 2007 interview. “It was going to be me uploading a video and sharing it with eight people and I knew exactly who was going to be watching these videos — sharing with my family and my friends.” What actually happened was a “completely different use case” in which people uploaded videos and shared them with the world.

17 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can anyone explain the connection of the headline and the discussion topic? What did Youtube have to do with a revolution? Which revolution was it, one of the color ones? Or is this just some stream-of-consciousness blabbering of a Millennial child? I honestly don't understand.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  2. ummm... by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

    video was on the net much much earlier than a decade ago. I recall watching video on my computer as amiddle school kid, so at least as early as 97-98. yeah quality was trash, and clips were small. but thats what youtube was in V1 as well.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:ummm... by kesuki · · Score: 3, Informative

      having been around (online) in 1997 i can assure you video cds and avi files were rampant on irc networks at the time. real player was around as soon as yahoo was launched (acoording to wikis) and while real encoder wasn't free it wasn't long after the release of the fraunhauffer codecs for audio that mysterious mpeg-4 as divx came along.

    2. Re:ummm... by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But video sucked in 1997 and it kept sucking until YouTube; if a random person wanted to share a video to a handful of people there really wasn't a good way of doing it. Realplayer was a client, not a distribution system, I remember downloading VideoCDs with FlashFXP off of questionable sites and getting binaries from usenet but it was shit compared to YouTube.

    3. Re:ummm... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      point remains, there was video before youtube, where as the summary makes it seem as if thats not true

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:ummm... by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      video was on the net much much earlier than a decade ago. I recall watching video on my computer as amiddle school kid, so at least as early as 97-98

      Yeah, I remember occasionally watching very (*very*) low resolution Real Video and similar clips over a dial-up connection circa the late 90s. But not very often, because...

      quality was trash, and clips were small

      Indeed.

      thats what youtube was in V1 as well

      From what I remember, even the early 240p YouTube clips (which gave rise to the site's now-fading association with low-quality video) were still better than anything that could be viewed in anything like real time streaming over dial-up.

      YouTube came along at almost exactly the same point (circa the mid-2000s) that broadband started seriously taking over from dial-up as the main method of Internet access for your average, mass-market user. And while broadband connections of the time might be slow- and the early YouTube videos low resolution- by modern standards, this was still a massive improvement upon what had gone before.

      Yeah, I'm sure many people were sharing movie and video files before that- some, no doubt, over university-owned broadband connections et al- but YouTube was far more usable and less disparate than finding those clips, and came along at a time when the technology let a rapidly-increasing number of people take advantage of it.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    5. Re:ummm... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      no argument there whatsoever. I simply dont like when people says things like this was the first X, or the first Y, when the truth is it was the first mainstream X or Y. Give credit to those who did do X or Y first is all im saying

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:ummm... by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Bwahaha! Most videos *today* aren't "streaming". I don't watch any videos on youtube or otherwise "live", I always download them, and start watching them with mplayer. Let me tell you a dirty little secret: the videos are files you can download with any browser or command line tool, if you know the correct url. Most services try to hide those urls just to mess with the riffraff.

      You can find out the urls by either installing a download extension for your browser, or using an extension that shows the HTTP headers for all the requests your browser does, or in many other ways that get progressively more tedious.

      Interestingly enough, real streaming content existed and was unsuccessful before youtube. It existed in the form of an rtsp protocol implemented by a small company called RealMedia. It was unsuccessful because the player was constantly buffering and the picture quality was too low to improve throughput. This was years _before_ youtube.

      Video quality on the net improved only when streaming was abandoned in favour of file downloads, because this insulates you from network issues better than on the fly buffering, and it also allows higher resolution and quality tradeoffs in a more continuous way.

      Of course the biggest improvement was simply that in the last 15 years most people have had acess to broadband, to the extent that people like you are duped into thinking your downloaded content is "streaming".

    7. Re:ummm... by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      That is incorrect. Realplayer made a whole business model around compressing both audio and video enough to be vieweable as a stream over analogue modem connection.

      The problem was that implementation was left to each individual site, which typically sucked donkey balls. You'd have tiny video window in the middle of a page choke full of flashing ads and other similar issues.

    8. Re:ummm... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      video was on the net much much earlier than a decade ago. I recall watching video on my computer as amiddle school kid, so at least as early as 97-98. yeah quality was trash, and clips were small. but thats what youtube was in V1 as well.

      Yes video was on the net before YouTube. But the problem was hosting videos. It cost $$ for the storage space a video occupied on your web server, and $$$ for the bandwidth to send it to anyone who requested it. If a site had a video on it and it went viral (either by email or IM word of mouth, or a slashdotting), you'd get the all-too-familiar "this site has exceeded its monthly bandwidth quota" page if you didn't visit it before it hit about 100,000 page hits.

      I recognized what YouTube was the moment I first saw it - a way for anyone to host a video without having to own a website nor pay for bandwidth. In fact that was my main concern about YouTube's survivability at first: how were they going to make enough money to pay for all the bandwidth they used? In a way, YouTube is what made the "viral hit" possible - because it eliminated bandwidth quota exceeded messages for online videos.

  3. YouTube survives solely because of Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Before the advent of YouTube there had been others who had wanted to launch similar service, and the one big hurdle is the huge bandwidth cost that the videos consumed

    Had it not because of Google, which bought up YouTube, it wouldn't have survived

  4. Youngster. by xenoc_1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a referback to a famous saying and song of the Seventies, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."
    Gil Scott-Heron.

    Kids these days. Probably don't get what either of the two basic meaning of "Tube" in YouTube mean either.

    1. Re:Youngster. by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Probably don't get what either of the two basic meaning of "Tube" in YouTube mean either.

      It's about the internet right?

      --TS

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    2. Re:Youngster. by xenoc_1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep. Certified Old Fart here.

  5. there was no revolution. by nimbius · · Score: 2

    youtube, and the internet == new mass media. Try this experiment in the states for example: Delete your cookies, clear your flash cache, and load up youtube. You'll come to find that without your 'targeted' content youtube is just feeding you the same shit your TV does. So, what do you get?
    CNN, CBS, MTV, Vevo, and the same fistful of extremely powerful multinational media companies pushing the same shit from their traditional media stations. Sure, you get a few locals like PewDiePie but at the end of the day those are all scripted and manufactured to youtubes content standards. content, duration, and script are all controlled to a certain standard.

    There was no revolution, the cattle just got a shinier car. Look back at every Youtube music awards show and theyre all dominated by signed, industry backed artists in generally heavy rotation on radio and TV. If youtube were a legitimate way for small artists to distribute and promote their music, the RIAA would have shoveled google head-first into a woodchipper of litigation. Hell, not just the front page but look at your search results. chances are likely industry promoted, highly visible artists and performers will be casually interspersed regardless of their relevance because youtube is simply a means of consuming a product and generating revenue through targeted advertisement.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  6. It succeeeded due to it's copyright infringment by blahbooboo · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reason YOuTube was successful at the start was it was full of nothing but copy protected content posted illegally. People seem to forget this, but in the early days that's all people used it for until Google swooped in and gave it plenty of cash to change.

  7. 20 years, not 10. by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    A decade ago, Netflix meant DVDs by mail, video referred to TV and the Internet meant simple text and pictures.

    In 2005? No, The Internet was a lot more than "simple text and pictures". I think you're remembering 1995.