3 ms·

> free This is the issue. I'm starting to believe the only options are free ad-supported generic platforms or direct creator-to-fan relationships. Totally free

> free This is the issue. I'm starting to believe the only options are free ad-supported generic platforms or direct creator-to-fan relationships. Totally free without ads is impossible.

Scoundreller 7y ago
I’d be happy if Mozilla ran video hosting and just targeted ads based on the video itself (and maybe broad geographic area and language) and not what the user browsed last week and is on the fence about. At least that’s been a viable model since the beginning of TV and radio. Dunno why it can’t be done now.
- derefr 7y ago
  Advertisers aren't interested in entering into new relationships with companies that can't tell them how well their ads are converting; they're too addicted to what ad-tech can do for them. Only the massive reach of the few existing old-world ad-space providers (e.g. cable TV; newspapers) allows them to keep doing things the old way. It's not a door open to anyone new.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    They'll still know how many views there were and on which video and how many actions they got, so they'll still know how well their ads are converting. They just won't be able to target them as well.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Because TV and radio are synchronous formats. The station only needs enough storage and bandwidth to play the one piece of media that they are playing right now, in this very moment. Once it's been broadcast once, it goes right in the trash unless they really need to record it for reruns or something. Online video requires you to be able to store every piece of video that has ever been uploaded, for the rest of eternity, and requires you to be able to play anything on-demand to ~600 million simultaneous connections, each requesting a different piece of media. You can't fund that with advertising. Google hasn't ever released figures, but the speculation consensus seems to be that youtube has never made a profit.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    > can’t fund that with advertising Give it 5 years.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      Youtube said that ten years ago, and they still haven't made a dime. Cheaper bandwidth and storage for the host doesn't help because it's getting cheaper for users too, meaning that they are going to create higher-quality content. Ten years ago, everything being uploaded to youtube was 480i resolution. Now most things being uploaded are 1080p60fps, with some channels starting to upload 4k.
- filoleg 7y ago
  >I’d be happy if Mozilla ran video hosting and just targeted ads based on the video itself (and maybe broad geographic area and language) and not what the user browsed last week and is on the fence about. Isn't that quite literally what youtube becomes, if you decide to turn off the watched history completely?

> free This is the issue. I'm starting to believe the only options are free ad-supported generic platforms or direct creator-to-fan relationships. Totally free without ads is impossible.

Scoundreller 7y ago

I’d be happy if Mozilla ran video hosting and just targeted ads based on the video itself (and maybe broad geographic area and language) and not what the user browsed last week and is on the fence about. At least that’s been a viable model since the beginning of TV and radio. Dunno why it can’t be done now.

derefr 7y ago
Advertisers aren't interested in entering into new relationships with companies that can't tell them how well their ads are converting; they're too addicted to what ad-tech can do for them. Only the massive reach of the few existing old-world ad-space providers (e.g. cable TV; newspapers) allows them to keep doing things the old way. It's not a door open to anyone new.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  They'll still know how many views there were and on which video and how many actions they got, so they'll still know how well their ads are converting. They just won't be able to target them as well.
hannasanarion 7y ago
Because TV and radio are synchronous formats. The station only needs enough storage and bandwidth to play the one piece of media that they are playing right now, in this very moment. Once it's been broadcast once, it goes right in the trash unless they really need to record it for reruns or something. Online video requires you to be able to store every piece of video that has ever been uploaded, for the rest of eternity, and requires you to be able to play anything on-demand to ~600 million simultaneous connections, each requesting a different piece of media. You can't fund that with advertising. Google hasn't ever released figures, but the speculation consensus seems to be that youtube has never made a profit.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  > can’t fund that with advertising Give it 5 years.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Youtube said that ten years ago, and they still haven't made a dime. Cheaper bandwidth and storage for the host doesn't help because it's getting cheaper for users too, meaning that they are going to create higher-quality content. Ten years ago, everything being uploaded to youtube was 480i resolution. Now most things being uploaded are 1080p60fps, with some channels starting to upload 4k.
filoleg 7y ago
>I’d be happy if Mozilla ran video hosting and just targeted ads based on the video itself (and maybe broad geographic area and language) and not what the user browsed last week and is on the fence about. Isn't that quite literally what youtube becomes, if you decide to turn off the watched history completely?