3 ms·
I interviewed at Vimeo nearly 5 years ago. No hard feelings to anyone there, but let's just say I didn't get the impression that things at Vimeo were "booming"
by ravenstine 5y ago
I interviewed at Vimeo nearly 5 years ago. No hard feelings to anyone there, but let's just say I didn't get the impression that things at Vimeo were "booming" by any means. Somewhat small office for a company that old. When I asked what the interviewers liked about working there, I didn't get any specific answers. Nobody seemed excited at all. It was pretty clear that ship was sinking, and I'm surprised they've lasted this long before desperately clawing at the walls.
Vimeo as a platform once had a sort of vibe not too far off from that of Instagram, but they chose to cater to artsy content even though that stuff really doesn't make much money. They should have pivoted to just being a sort of more hip YouTube for the descendants of the YouTube generation. Now TikTok, Instagram, and Rumble (to a small extent) have that.
- smileybarry 5y agoRecently during COVID lockdowns, one of the local cinemas with a niche movie club pivoted to offering at-home viewings powered by Vimeo. It was a bit crude, given as a password-protected video that they'd "enable" for specific hourly blocks, but it worked very well. Because they relied on Vimeo, that meant you could use any Vimeo apps or casting plugins, e.g.: Google Cast. Stuff like that might've kept them from sinking, basically companies who want to upload a private, copyrighted video file that they have rights to but would get taken down (or muted, or DMCA-censored) by YouTube in under an hour. I was pleasantly surprised the movie studios actually signed off on them uploading an unprotected video file, but obviously they did. I wonder if they charged them the same or more than the person in this article. They obviously generated more traffic than her, but I'm cynically assuming they "got away" with paying less.