5 ms·
Twitch is the evolution of YouTube and Twitch has an open-source competitor, the question is rather why is nobody using the competition? Look at Mixer, and in
by bullen 5y ago
Twitch is the evolution of YouTube and Twitch has an open-source competitor, the question is rather why is nobody using the competition?
Look at Mixer, and in specific Shrouds transition to Mixer. Almost nobody followed him there. When he came back to Twitch he was the single biggest streamer they have ever had with 200K+ viewers.
Technology is feature monopolistic as long as it's "free", the evolution always happens by constructive destruction. Eventually there will be something that replaces Twitch by being _fundamentally_ better at capturing our attention without needing OBS.
People that haven't moved to Twitch from YouTube simply do not know Twitch exists or haven't tried it because they lack time.
Or maybe the transition is going from passive to active and some people wish to stay passive?
As for video anyone with a computer and a range capable HTTP server can distribute it, the problem is competing with bandwidth.
- SahAssar 5y agoI view twitch and youtube as two completely different types of content. Twitch is livestreaming and youtube is prepared, scripted content. Sorta like 24/7 cable news channels vs a documentary or drama series. A lot of people have a preference for one or the other and I definitely prefer the latter. Especially since the "news" that happens on twitch often seems to be twitch-specific drama.
- bullen 5y agoTwitch is not for news! It serves only two purposes: entertainment and community. Large streamers have humor, but chat is completely meaningless with them. Small streamers (mostly gamedev) are the community that is meaningful. It's surpisingly small still, only a few thousand viewers that all watch many of the same devs. Game development is really the only meaningful thing you can do today that does not involve energy (food, heat and water = electricity).
- SahAssar 5y agoI didn't mean it was for news, I meant that the "live-ness" of it seems to be the main selling point for it. > Game development is really the only meaningful thing you can do today that does not involve energy I don't even know what you are trying to say with this. What makes game development more or less "meaningful" than other activities? How does game development not require energy?
- bullen 5y agoIt requires much less energy, and we need to virtualize life completely, only food, sleep and toilet will be in meatspace, everything else will be a open (so you can modify and resell) action (think super mario galaxy) 3D MMO with 1000s of players per server!
- SahAssar 5y agoIf you want to live in the metaverse, fine, but don't claim that it's the only "meaningful" thing.
- bullen 5y agoWell, until you give me a counter argument, I just proved it is! The physical world is shrinking in every metric possible and it's accelerating. The only way to escape it is through virtualisation, the kids are allready living there.
- bullen 5y agoAlso the metaverse is meaningless, what we need is action (as I said; super mario galaxy, but 1000s of players) and the current definition of metaverse talks more about virtual things and economies. And now since Zuckerberg is cybersquatting the term we need to find a new one. How about "the internet", wadda ya say?