7 ms·

> In a letter to shareholders in February, Sud spells the shift out in black and white: “Today we are a technology platform, not a viewing destination. We are a

> In a letter to shareholders in February, Sud spells the shift out in black and white: “Today we are a technology platform, not a viewing destination. We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.” Vimeo did not respond to The Verge’s request for comment. Yup, that's pretty black and white. I plan to send that to everyone I know currently using Vimeo and advise them to jump off the sinking ship.

tootie 5y ago
This has pretty clearly been their business for years though. I'm glad she's spelling it out black and white but it's a great B2B platform and they absolutely can't ever catch YouTube so there's no point trying.
- llampx 5y ago
  Is there no point in trying unless you can dominate the segment?
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    For video, there isn’t if you don’t have a realistic plan to drive video serving costs and ad sales/platform costs low enough. For consumers that requires enormous scale. Perhaps a new entrant would burn investment to try but Vimeo is hopefully not going to want to roll dice on an established company with real customers, after having already been beaten by YouTube once.
    - llampx 5y ago
      I understand your point of view. I am not sure whether the notion that there's no space for #2 or #3 etc, is true myself.
      - tootie 5y ago
        I think the proof is in the pudding. Vimeo has been the #2 video sharing platform for a long time and are basically exiting the creator market because it's costing them money.
        theptip 5y ago
        The other thing to consider is the that Google gets immense economy of scale from its other cloud business. So a one-product company like Vimeo will always struggle to compete in an economy-of-scale dominant vertical like storage. Microsoft or AWS could compete here if they chose.
nebula8804 5y ago
People say the same thing when Youtube cancels them. Where are they going to go? Rumble? DailyMotion? These crap alternatives will then have the same problem in a few years.
- root_axis 5y ago
  > Where are they going to go Pay for your own hosting.
  - jb1991 5y ago
    Most indie video creators are not developers, and most developers would still struggle with the extraordinary challenge of effective video hosting.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      > Most indie video creators are not developers, and most developers would still struggle with the extraordinary challenge of effective video hosting. Huh? I didn't say "build a homebrew video hosting service". When you don't know how to do something you need done, you pay an expert to do it. I'm sure indie artists expect to be compensated for their own work, why shouldn't the people doing the technical work the artist is unable to do on their own be compensated?
      - jb1991 5y ago
        It was easy to misunderstand you. You said pay for the hosting, which implies paying a hosting company. Of course, it would make more sense if you’re also paying an entire team to build it for you. But that wasn’t the initial reading of your comment.
        root_axis 5y ago
        Fair. I could have articulated my point more clearly. I was indeed implying that they "pay a hosting company" with the unstated implication that they also pay a company or individual to deal with the technical details surrounding that process. If I told someone to "build your own house" in the context of home ownership, I wouldn't expect them to understand that as literally building it themselves, I'd expect them to hire an architect, contractor etc, but on HN I can understand why the implication might sound like a DIY suggestion.
culturestate 5y ago
> We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube. Hasn’t this always been the case? As I recall, Vimeo was a tool that CollegeHumor built for themselves back before YouTube was YouTube, and it survived (thrived?) almost accidentally on the backs of its “professional” users.
- belval 5y ago
  I didn't know that! Crazy to think that a business with $200M in revenue came from a side-project from CollegeHumor.
- slig 5y ago
  TIL. Also, collegehumor.com redirects to their youtube channel.
- bdougherty 5y ago
  Not always, but for a long time, yes. Back in the very early days (2007-2009 or so), it was a much more personal thing and not professional. It was actually a really awesome community of people. After that, we sort of shifted towards "semi-professional" and eventually more professional after that.
causi 5y ago
not the indie version of YouTube In my experience Vimeo is the place where you go to post creative-minded drivel without every viewer pointing out that it's drivel and then calling you an ethnic slur. Vimeo simply doesn't have a good reputation. When I see a Vimeo link I know it's going to be somebody talking about how taking ayahuasca while in VR makes you closer to God or how they programmed a Microsoft Kinect to only unlock their front door if they do a dance off Fortnite.
- nr2x 5y ago
  Hard disagree. Once upon a time it was a place where animators used to upload really crazy work, particularly at the end of the academic semester when students would post experimental stuff from thesis projects. A really creative community that basically evaporated. Lots of really cool music videos as well.
  - bdougherty 5y ago
    There is still a lot of stuff like this, but it's harder than ever to find, and certainly not anywhere near as much as it used to be. It's a real shame.
    - nr2x 5y ago
      Yeah, tragedy.
danShumway 5y ago
> "Today we are a technology platform, not a viewing destination. We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube." I wonder what the strategy is for shifting though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understand was that Youtube was able to hit dominance in part because it ran at a loss for a long time and basically encouraged everyone to just throw stuff on the platform. I don't know how you become the indie version of Youtube if people are nervous about putting experimental, indie, or even crappy videos on the site out of fear that those videos might contribute to their hosting costs. My feeling is that there are two models: - B2B hosting, where you shift costs to uploaders but let them interact directly with other businesses/customers without ads or excessive railroading. Basically getting businesses to pay for infrastructure to connect with clients/users. - A media destination platform, where you shift costs to consumers (either through subscriptions or ads), and away from uploaders/businesses, because you're monetizing their content and they're allowing you to control the ecosystem -- the ecosystem is the monetization. I'm no expert, nobody should assume I know anything about running a media company. But as a user/creator, I don't understand why I would upload to a media platform where I have to pay for the privilege of having them monetize my content. I tolerate uploading stuff to Youtube and having them monetize my stuff because their hosting is free. I tolerate paying for raw hosting and CDN services because they allow me to own my own ecosystem. If the hosting isn't free, as a business I think I would want a lot more control over the platform, I wouldn't tolerate Youtube's railroading as much and I wouldn't tolerate Youtube's advertising. If I'm paying for hosting, I kind of expect a B2B solution, and increasing hosting costs if anything makes me expect even more control over the process -- for the cost of a CDN, I expect them to act like a CDN. Maybe other creators feel different about that? If it costs $3600 a year to upload to Youtube, are people going to be sticking a lot of indie music and Let's Plays and Twitch-stream mirrors on Youtube? I would think that most of the clients who are fine with paying those kinds of costs are themselves businesses/entrepreneurs.

tootie 5y ago

This has pretty clearly been their business for years though. I'm glad she's spelling it out black and white but it's a great B2B platform and they absolutely can't ever catch YouTube so there's no point trying.

llampx 5y ago
Is there no point in trying unless you can dominate the segment?
- 1123581321 5y ago
  For video, there isn’t if you don’t have a realistic plan to drive video serving costs and ad sales/platform costs low enough. For consumers that requires enormous scale. Perhaps a new entrant would burn investment to try but Vimeo is hopefully not going to want to roll dice on an established company with real customers, after having already been beaten by YouTube once.
  - llampx 5y ago
    I understand your point of view. I am not sure whether the notion that there's no space for #2 or #3 etc, is true myself.
    - tootie 5y ago
      I think the proof is in the pudding. Vimeo has been the #2 video sharing platform for a long time and are basically exiting the creator market because it's costing them money.
      - theptip 5y ago
        The other thing to consider is the that Google gets immense economy of scale from its other cloud business. So a one-product company like Vimeo will always struggle to compete in an economy-of-scale dominant vertical like storage. Microsoft or AWS could compete here if they chose.

nebula8804 5y ago

People say the same thing when Youtube cancels them. Where are they going to go? Rumble? DailyMotion? These crap alternatives will then have the same problem in a few years.

root_axis 5y ago
> Where are they going to go Pay for your own hosting.
- jb1991 5y ago
  Most indie video creators are not developers, and most developers would still struggle with the extraordinary challenge of effective video hosting.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    > Most indie video creators are not developers, and most developers would still struggle with the extraordinary challenge of effective video hosting. Huh? I didn't say "build a homebrew video hosting service". When you don't know how to do something you need done, you pay an expert to do it. I'm sure indie artists expect to be compensated for their own work, why shouldn't the people doing the technical work the artist is unable to do on their own be compensated?
    - jb1991 5y ago
      It was easy to misunderstand you. You said pay for the hosting, which implies paying a hosting company. Of course, it would make more sense if you’re also paying an entire team to build it for you. But that wasn’t the initial reading of your comment.
      - root_axis 5y ago
        Fair. I could have articulated my point more clearly. I was indeed implying that they "pay a hosting company" with the unstated implication that they also pay a company or individual to deal with the technical details surrounding that process. If I told someone to "build your own house" in the context of home ownership, I wouldn't expect them to understand that as literally building it themselves, I'd expect them to hire an architect, contractor etc, but on HN I can understand why the implication might sound like a DIY suggestion.

culturestate 5y ago

> We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube. Hasn’t this always been the case? As I recall, Vimeo was a tool that CollegeHumor built for themselves back before YouTube was YouTube, and it survived (thrived?) almost accidentally on the backs of its “professional” users.

belval 5y ago
I didn't know that! Crazy to think that a business with $200M in revenue came from a side-project from CollegeHumor.
slig 5y ago
TIL. Also, collegehumor.com redirects to their youtube channel.
bdougherty 5y ago
Not always, but for a long time, yes. Back in the very early days (2007-2009 or so), it was a much more personal thing and not professional. It was actually a really awesome community of people. After that, we sort of shifted towards "semi-professional" and eventually more professional after that.

causi 5y ago

not the indie version of YouTube In my experience Vimeo is the place where you go to post creative-minded drivel without every viewer pointing out that it's drivel and then calling you an ethnic slur. Vimeo simply doesn't have a good reputation. When I see a Vimeo link I know it's going to be somebody talking about how taking ayahuasca while in VR makes you closer to God or how they programmed a Microsoft Kinect to only unlock their front door if they do a dance off Fortnite.

nr2x 5y ago
Hard disagree. Once upon a time it was a place where animators used to upload really crazy work, particularly at the end of the academic semester when students would post experimental stuff from thesis projects. A really creative community that basically evaporated. Lots of really cool music videos as well.
- bdougherty 5y ago
  There is still a lot of stuff like this, but it's harder than ever to find, and certainly not anywhere near as much as it used to be. It's a real shame.
  - nr2x 5y ago
    Yeah, tragedy.

danShumway 5y ago

> "Today we are a technology platform, not a viewing destination. We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube." I wonder what the strategy is for shifting though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understand was that Youtube was able to hit dominance in part because it ran at a loss for a long time and basically encouraged everyone to just throw stuff on the platform. I don't know how you become the indie version of Youtube if people are nervous about putting experimental, indie, or even crappy videos on the site out of fear that those videos might contribute to their hosting costs. My feeling is that there are two models: - B2B hosting, where you shift costs to uploaders but let them interact directly with other businesses/customers without ads or excessive railroading. Basically getting businesses to pay for infrastructure to connect with clients/users. - A media destination platform, where you shift costs to consumers (either through subscriptions or ads), and away from uploaders/businesses, because you're monetizing their content and they're allowing you to control the ecosystem -- the ecosystem is the monetization. I'm no expert, nobody should assume I know anything about running a media company. But as a user/creator, I don't understand why I would upload to a media platform where I have to pay for the privilege of having them monetize my content. I tolerate uploading stuff to Youtube and having them monetize my stuff because their hosting is free. I tolerate paying for raw hosting and CDN services because they allow me to own my own ecosystem. If the hosting isn't free, as a business I think I would want a lot more control over the platform, I wouldn't tolerate Youtube's railroading as much and I wouldn't tolerate Youtube's advertising. If I'm paying for hosting, I kind of expect a B2B solution, and increasing hosting costs if anything makes me expect even more control over the process -- for the cost of a CDN, I expect them to act like a CDN. Maybe other creators feel different about that? If it costs $3600 a year to upload to Youtube, are people going to be sticking a lot of indie music and Let's Plays and Twitch-stream mirrors on Youtube? I would think that most of the clients who are fine with paying those kinds of costs are themselves businesses/entrepreneurs.