2 ms·
But why would they invest time and energy fixing a flaw for a customer spending $200/yr? That pays for like 2 hours of a senior engineer. More expedient to ask
by tootie 5y ago
But why would they invest time and energy fixing a flaw for a customer spending $200/yr? That pays for like 2 hours of a senior engineer. More expedient to ask them to pay more or leave.
- menzoic 5y agoBecause it will save them money on all videos that aren't fully watched. Great ROI
- tootie 5y agoI think this announcement is firmly stating that they don't have the volume of small customers for that to be economical. YouTube can spend tens of millions a year shaving every last byte off their egress because they have such enormous volume that is pays off in aggregate. Vimeo can't do that so they don't try.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- krisoft 5y agoThe problem is that the acount in question would be a “low” to “midling” usage account in youtube or twitch terms. The kind where your friends tell you “just keep at it and one day you might find success”. Obviously vimeo is free to shed this user, as they are free to change business and open a goat farm in El Paso or a hair saloon in Brooklyn. This is not about vimeo’s rights or freedoms. The idea behind service providers is that they pool together many similar needs and serve them more efficiently than individual users alone could. For example if vimeo would have tens of thousands of accounts who need an optimisation to make their video serving more efficient that could start to make sense for vimeo. Now the problem is that it seems vimeo either doesn’t have the scale to pull this off, or decided to not do it. That is fine, but then why would anyone go into business with them? It sounds like vimeo is sinking and anyone who is a paying customer of them now is better get off and quick.