4 ms·

https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-started-as-an-online-dating-site/ https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-started-as-an-online-datin... Here's a little more info.

https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-started-as-an-online-dating-site/ https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-started-as-an-online-datin... Here's a little more info. They changed it to a general purpose video site after 5 days after nobody uploaded any videos although they offered 20 USD to each woman for uploading a self-introduction video.

ronilan 7y ago
This wayback machine is from April 28, 2005. Me at the Zoo[1] is from April 23, 2005. So technically speaking, someone did upload something. And 5 days is actually really 5 days... Which brings the question - what is the second oldest YouTube video still on the site? Who is the “also ran”? [1] https://youtu.be/jNQXAC9IVRw https://youtu.be/jNQXAC9IVRw
- mkagenius 7y ago
  > [1] https://youtu.be/jNQXAC9IVRw https://youtu.be/jNQXAC9IVRw Wow, the level of spammy comments on that one is perpetual.
  - Thorrez 7y ago
    The comments on that video default to sorted by new. You can change it to sorted by top. The uploader chooses the default sort, but the default for the default is top.
- est31 7y ago
  So that's why he talks about the long trunks of the elephants in that video.
- cowsandmilk 7y ago
  The founder of the site seeded content, that isn’t users uploading...
  - ronilan 7y ago
    Founders do that? That’s so seedy!
- jxramos 7y ago
  wow a whopping 18 seconds and 72,954,314 views!
- computator 7y ago
  One of the comments on that video claims that the guy makes $5.9k-$93.7k per year on that one 18-second video. Does that sound plausible and consistent with what YouTube pays? Is there any way to check if he has actually monetized his video?
  - P0l83q4p1Hw3Ul 7y ago
    $1-10 per 1k views. 73m views / 15 years = 5.2m views/year =$5.2k/year - $52k/year. Turn off Adblock and see if an ad plays.
- avip 7y ago
  Is there a sequel? First ever tweet, HN comment, SO question... tinder profile?
colmvp 7y ago
CoffeeMeetsBagel briefly added a video feature where you could record your answer to a question they asked each day. They had it for a short time before they completely pulled it. I wonder if the ROI in terms of handling video bandwidth to conversion to dates wasn't really that much better than just still photos.
- btown 7y ago
  It's more likely that even in our modern age of ephemeral video sharing, the idea of recording a video to introduce yourself to strangers still introduces substantial friction and stress, which would turn people off from engagement even if it were optional.
- ajcodez 7y ago
  It’s hard to make a flattering video. TV studios have professional makeup artists and lighting from every angle. It’s a lot easier to take a flattering photo.
  - sirkneeland 7y ago
    As the former PM of a competing dating app, I agree.
tech-historian 7y ago
Here's a full visual history of Youtube starting in 2005: https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/youtube-website https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/youtube-website
- amiller2571 7y ago
  I completely forgot about the 2012 version... Bad times :(
- paulddraper 7y ago
  It's missing the posted version of the site.
bane 7y ago
The real interesting part is how modern Google would have simply just executed the product today.
- endymi0n 7y ago
  Launch seven slightly different platforms, all of which have the theoretical scalability of YouTube, four of them using AI. Then putting them on cards on their search engine, triggering a gazillion unsuccessful antitrust lawsuits, only to see they all still aren‘t used. Then shelving half of them 5 years later and killing all the content forever.

ronilan 7y ago

This wayback machine is from April 28, 2005. Me at the Zoo[1] is from April 23, 2005. So technically speaking, someone did upload something. And 5 days is actually really 5 days... Which brings the question - what is the second oldest YouTube video still on the site? Who is the “also ran”? [1] https://youtu.be/jNQXAC9IVRw https://youtu.be/jNQXAC9IVRw

mkagenius 7y ago
> [1] https://youtu.be/jNQXAC9IVRw https://youtu.be/jNQXAC9IVRw Wow, the level of spammy comments on that one is perpetual.
- Thorrez 7y ago
  The comments on that video default to sorted by new. You can change it to sorted by top. The uploader chooses the default sort, but the default for the default is top.
est31 7y ago
So that's why he talks about the long trunks of the elephants in that video.
cowsandmilk 7y ago
The founder of the site seeded content, that isn’t users uploading...
- ronilan 7y ago
  Founders do that? That’s so seedy!
jxramos 7y ago
wow a whopping 18 seconds and 72,954,314 views!
computator 7y ago
One of the comments on that video claims that the guy makes $5.9k-$93.7k per year on that one 18-second video. Does that sound plausible and consistent with what YouTube pays? Is there any way to check if he has actually monetized his video?
- P0l83q4p1Hw3Ul 7y ago
  $1-10 per 1k views. 73m views / 15 years = 5.2m views/year =$5.2k/year - $52k/year. Turn off Adblock and see if an ad plays.
avip 7y ago
Is there a sequel? First ever tweet, HN comment, SO question... tinder profile?

colmvp 7y ago

CoffeeMeetsBagel briefly added a video feature where you could record your answer to a question they asked each day. They had it for a short time before they completely pulled it. I wonder if the ROI in terms of handling video bandwidth to conversion to dates wasn't really that much better than just still photos.

btown 7y ago
It's more likely that even in our modern age of ephemeral video sharing, the idea of recording a video to introduce yourself to strangers still introduces substantial friction and stress, which would turn people off from engagement even if it were optional.
ajcodez 7y ago
It’s hard to make a flattering video. TV studios have professional makeup artists and lighting from every angle. It’s a lot easier to take a flattering photo.
- sirkneeland 7y ago
  As the former PM of a competing dating app, I agree.

tech-historian 7y ago

Here's a full visual history of Youtube starting in 2005: https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/youtube-website https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/youtube-website

amiller2571 7y ago
I completely forgot about the 2012 version... Bad times :(
paulddraper 7y ago
It's missing the posted version of the site.

bane 7y ago

The real interesting part is how modern Google would have simply just executed the product today.

endymi0n 7y ago
Launch seven slightly different platforms, all of which have the theoretical scalability of YouTube, four of them using AI. Then putting them on cards on their search engine, triggering a gazillion unsuccessful antitrust lawsuits, only to see they all still aren‘t used. Then shelving half of them 5 years later and killing all the content forever.