7 ms·

As a consumer of Vimeo content from musicians and comedians, I can translate this to English: “We have given up trying to produce a competitive consumer solutio

As a consumer of Vimeo content from musicians and comedians, I can translate this to English: “We have given up trying to produce a competitive consumer solution because we can’t be bothered to hire a UX designer or do any basic consumer-level testing of our product at all. Fuck if we know how to make things work. But business don’t care.”

lelandfe 5y ago
I think it's less "because we can't be bothered" and more "because we don't want to compete with YouTube"
- darknavi 5y ago
  "Can't afford to compete" would also be accurate.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    I wonder whether YouTube actually makes money yet or even if it does, would if it were standalone (as they can benefit from Google scale and Google infrastructure).
    - KaoruAoiShiho 5y ago
      Early on yes, but today YT is at least a $100b company by itself.
      - MattGaiser 5y ago
        Doesn’t mean it makes money.
        TheRealNGenius 5y ago
        doesn't matter
    - sidibe 5y ago
      Most of what youtube needs is the non-time-critical filler of Google's workload so it's pretty flexible and cheap to host in whatever space is free in Google's data centers, which are already the most efficient ones. And with such a large amount of compute needed they can justify hiring a lot of people to optimize every little part of software and hardware involved with Youtube. Google's infrastructure scale is such a big advantage for Youtube compared to competitors
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
huhtenberg 5y ago
I happen to really like Vimeo's UX. Dead simple and completely on point. You come, you click play and you watch. Done. Whether this is worth $3500 a year vs a self-hosted solution is an open question, but their UI/UX is very much fine.
cortesoft 5y ago
I think it is more “it is impossible to build a business around free streaming that can compete with YouTube” It doesn’t matter how good the product is, the space is just not profitable.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lelandfe 5y ago

I think it's less "because we can't be bothered" and more "because we don't want to compete with YouTube"

darknavi 5y ago
"Can't afford to compete" would also be accurate.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  I wonder whether YouTube actually makes money yet or even if it does, would if it were standalone (as they can benefit from Google scale and Google infrastructure).
  - KaoruAoiShiho 5y ago
    Early on yes, but today YT is at least a $100b company by itself.
    - MattGaiser 5y ago
      Doesn’t mean it makes money.
      - TheRealNGenius 5y ago
        doesn't matter
  - sidibe 5y ago
    Most of what youtube needs is the non-time-critical filler of Google's workload so it's pretty flexible and cheap to host in whatever space is free in Google's data centers, which are already the most efficient ones. And with such a large amount of compute needed they can justify hiring a lot of people to optimize every little part of software and hardware involved with Youtube. Google's infrastructure scale is such a big advantage for Youtube compared to competitors

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

huhtenberg 5y ago

I happen to really like Vimeo's UX. Dead simple and completely on point. You come, you click play and you watch. Done. Whether this is worth $3500 a year vs a self-hosted solution is an open question, but their UI/UX is very much fine.

cortesoft 5y ago

I think it is more “it is impossible to build a business around free streaming that can compete with YouTube” It doesn’t matter how good the product is, the space is just not profitable.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]