3 ms·

> I know it's greedy and irrational, but I want everything centralized into one service so I don't have to think about where to go to watch a thing. I want a mo

> I know it's greedy and irrational, but I want everything centralized into one service so I don't have to think about where to go to watch a thing. I want a monopoly, but without the problems that come with a monopoly, and I suspect a large enough percentage of users feel the same way that other platforms just can't get off the ground. Podcast model. Client handles discovery and "subscriptions" and all that. Hosting is separate. YouTube's immense control comes from controlling all of that, but there's no reason you have to have a single provider to get the everything's-in-one-place effect—you can instead empower client programs. That kills the "ugh, but I don't want to go to another site..." effect because it's simply not an issue. You click "subscribe" and it's in the same "app" as everything else, regardless of where the videos are hosted.

StewardMcOy 4y ago
I really like the podcast model, but compared to the scale of YouTube, I'm not sure it can hold up. It's not just hosting, but search as well, for 500 hours of video per minute.
- corrral 4y ago
  > I really like the podcast model, but compared to the scale of YouTube, I'm not sure it can hold up. It's not just hosting, but search as well, for 500 hours of video per minute. If only there were some company dedicated to providing search for resources that others host online. Perhaps if they had a mission to make the world's knowledge more accessible. :-) Plus, I'm pretty sure if you excluded stuff that's never likely to be watched by many folks except the odd fluke that gains viral notoriety (think: training videos, home videos that aren't aiming for virality, schools filming sports & activities and posting them, that kind of thing) you could cut that number to 10% or less of that. Most of the content going up isn't intended for a wide audience, I'd bet. An at-least-as-good video-podcast client wouldn't need to index or present the vast majority of what gets uploaded to YouTube. Much of that would be fine over on one of the lesser streaming services (Vimeo, say) now, but only ends up on YouTube because it's synonymous with user-uploaded Web video for most folks.
Tyr42 4y ago
Okay, but how would you compete with "free hosting" on YouTube?

StewardMcOy 4y ago

I really like the podcast model, but compared to the scale of YouTube, I'm not sure it can hold up. It's not just hosting, but search as well, for 500 hours of video per minute.

corrral 4y ago
> I really like the podcast model, but compared to the scale of YouTube, I'm not sure it can hold up. It's not just hosting, but search as well, for 500 hours of video per minute. If only there were some company dedicated to providing search for resources that others host online. Perhaps if they had a mission to make the world's knowledge more accessible. :-) Plus, I'm pretty sure if you excluded stuff that's never likely to be watched by many folks except the odd fluke that gains viral notoriety (think: training videos, home videos that aren't aiming for virality, schools filming sports & activities and posting them, that kind of thing) you could cut that number to 10% or less of that. Most of the content going up isn't intended for a wide audience, I'd bet. An at-least-as-good video-podcast client wouldn't need to index or present the vast majority of what gets uploaded to YouTube. Much of that would be fine over on one of the lesser streaming services (Vimeo, say) now, but only ends up on YouTube because it's synonymous with user-uploaded Web video for most folks.

Tyr42 4y ago

Okay, but how would you compete with "free hosting" on YouTube?