Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Executive Says Facebook Will Be All Video, No Text In 5 Years (mashable.com)

Posted by msmash on from the from-the-future dept.

Kellen Beck, writing for Mashable: Video must be doing well on Facebook, because an executive at the company just predicted that's all Facebook will be in five years. Nicola Mendelsohn, Facebook's vice president of European, Middle Eastern and African operations, said at a conference Tuesday that in five years, Facebook "will be probably all video," Quartz reported. Mendelsohn added that video is "the best way to tell stories in this world" and "helps us to digest much more information." Mendelsohn is predicting the obsolescence of the written word, at least on Facebook, according to Quartz. That sounds far-fetched, but consider the way Facebook is decreasing an emphasis on text and diving headfirst into video with numerous recent updates and features.

25 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how stupid

  2. Fuck that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are countless situations where it is easier and more appropriate to write a short text comment than to make sure you are presentable enough to record video of you saying something.

    All video... that is ridiculous.

    1. Re:Fuck that... by tattood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is quite true. If Facebook is all video, then that means people can no longer view Facebook at work, or any other place where you don't want to draw attention to yourself. The day Facebook is all video is the day their user base starts to drop.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    2. Re:Fuck that... by Tukz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you seen the staggering amount of YouTube DIY Videos, that lasts for more than 10 minutes, but could be summarised in a paragraph of text?

      So many times when I am looking for solutions to a problem, I find hordes of videos explaining it, where a simple paragraph of text could have done the same thing.
      Why? I don't get it.

      It's much easier, and faster, to read some text than watching through a video of some guy explaining it with 4 different analogies.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    3. Re:Fuck that... by mrops · · Score: 4, Funny

      I couldn't quite understand that, do you have a video of that?

    4. Re:Fuck that... by Chalnoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's also the point that it's typically far faster to read than it is to listen to a video.

    5. Re:Fuck that... by Ghostworks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      endelsohn added that video is "the best way to tell stories in this world" and "helps us to digest much more information."

      A few more reason's that that's a stupid claim:

      I can read faster than my grandmother can speak. I can scan and skim faster than my friends can speak spread over 12 different videos.

      I can read at work without anyone noticing and without putting on headphones. I can type a response without anyone else being aware of it. I can even read text in a meeting.

      I can search for specific text.

      To pause "text with pictures", I stop paying attention; to resume, I start paying attention. Video will never be able to strip down a UI to that level of control.

      I can polish text in drafts. I can compose text in my underwear. Neither are true about recording a video.

      Speaking to her "best way to tell stories": as an example of how that's ridiculous, think about the resources it takes to film a season of Game of Thrones versus how much it took George R. R. Martin to write the book. People can get through the former faster and with less effort, but only only for the modest price of $6 million per hour. (Don't worry, once you get 8 million followers, that's not so bad per follower....)

      If her statement were true, it would basically mean that Facebook is dead, because YouTube already does video. It's a lot easier to staple social functionality onto a video site than it is to press video into a social site.

      You think the way text messages have nearly done away with voice calls and voicemail between friends would be a clue that most people prefer text to listening. And that's what amateur video usually is: a talking head in a bedroom.

      If everything is a video, things that have to be a video -- a dance, a recital -- don't stand out above the noise.

    6. Re:Fuck that... by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reading is an order of magnitude faster than listening.

    7. Re:Fuck that... by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reading is an order of magnitude faster than listening.

      More importantly, the speed of reading is user controlled. Watching and listening is force feeding and the speed is controlled by somebody else.

      Reading is much faster than watching and listening - except for stupid people. Using Farcebook is already evidence of gross stupidity.

    8. Re:Fuck that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you seen the staggering amount of YouTube DIY Videos, that lasts for more than 10 minutes, but could be summarised in a paragraph of text?

      So many times when I am looking for solutions to a problem, I find hordes of videos explaining it, where a simple paragraph of text could have done the same thing.
      Why? I don't get it.

      It's much easier, and faster, to read some text than watching through a video of some guy explaining it with 4 different analogies.

      Also the joy of fast-forwarding to try to find the step that you're stuck on and rewinding a few times because they blazed through it too fast or used a poor camera angle.

    9. Re:Fuck that... by bozzy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A short, concise, thought-out video demonstration of a task can be more informative than pure text.

      However, most of these DIY videos are neither short nor well thought-out. Such videos take effort to produce.

      If you can't take the time to do a good job with a video, you'd save time by writing the simple paragraph. A maybe have a static image or two.

      --
      playmoney.me - The free alternative to paper board game play money
    10. Re:Fuck that... by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can also skim when reading, being able to skip straight to the important point. Most people when they pick up a book aren't reading the preface completely, or the copyright page, and so forth. They want to get to the good stuff. If you read a newspaper you're flipping through to the stories that are interesting, headlines that catch your attention. But with video you are stuck listening to a very slow talker who takes minutes to get to the point; and if it's youtube you have a horrible UI that doesn't let you skip forward or backward efficiently like you can with a DVR (don't know what facebook is like there but I doubt it's any better).

  3. LMAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "helps us to digest much more information."

    Yes, if you have the attention span of a goldfish.

    Of course, if you're a facebook executive, that's probably the case.

    1. Re:LMAO by Bigbutt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only that, I can skip over the uninteresting stuff or things I already am aware of. Plus I can jump back a paragraph if I zoned out while reading or was distracted by a hottie walking by.

      Plus when creating a message, I can edit it, change the order, or delete bits that are redundant or dangle.

      And I can type in my message in the nude. While I'm not bothered by it, others might be :)

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
  4. Only users left by mpol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That means that the only users that will use Facebook are people that want videos.
    People that do not want videos will not use Facebook anymore.

    --

    Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
  5. Too Slow by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No.
    It's not the bandwidth-- it's just that video is too damn slow.
    I can skim a text post in a second, maybe two. If I slow down to read it, maybe fifteen seconds tops. If I have to watch a video from every person on my friends list-- I just won't.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  6. Uh good one by redmid17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ms Mendelsohn,

    What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    It's quicker to consume text than video. Just an FYI

  7. Not likely by doconnor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not hard for anyone to write quickly write readable text, like I'm doing now. For me to make a comment like this in video it would either generate a stammering barely understandable video, or require fifteen minutes of planning, rehearsal and editing to make it a reasonable 30 second video, that is still less convent then the 10 seconds you look to read this.

  8. Re:Video is often the worst way to convey informat by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Furthermore, phone calls are closer to video than text. We had audio phone conversations before we had instant text communication in everyone's hands, and text communication caught on like wildfire as an easier, less intrusive thing to do.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  9. Re:Bandwidth? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can already disable video over mobile data on Facebook. VERY useful feature.

  10. It's about the AD potential by dfm3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Text ads are all but worthless at this point, users are quickly becoming jaded by still image advertising, but an all-video platform provides more opportunities to present video ads which seem to be the latest rage. My cynical side firmly believes that's why Facebook has placed more emphasis on video content lately, and introduced features like autoplaying videos in the news feed.

    And yes, it's far-fetched to think that FB will be all-video at any point before they fade completely into irrelevancy. After all, it seems like virtually everything on my news feed at this point is links to clickbait websites, sappy inspirational quotes superimposed over stock photos, and "comment below then put this as your status" copypasta.

  11. Totally disagree. Wouldn't read or write just text by raymorris · · Score: 4, Funny

    I totally disagree. I'd NEVER read and write purely textual comments on any site.

  12. Re:Video is often the worst way to convey informat by zero_out · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Furthermore, phone calls are closer to video than text. We had audio phone conversations before we had instant text communication in everyone's hands, and text communication caught on like wildfire as an easier, less intrusive thing to do.

    I think the asynchronous nature of text is a bigger contributing factor to it's success than how unobtrusive it is. (reposted because I wasn't logged in the first time)

  13. Re:Bandwidth? by Barny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So in five years, would that just block facebook?

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  14. Ray Bradbury Farenheight 451 had this by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you recall F541 by ray bradbury you may recall the sad social life of the fireman's wife who lived in a room with four video walls and interacted with her facebook "freinds" / soap operas. Text was not used, indeed it was burned.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.