4 ms·
Yes, I do agree with you. It is not just Google's greed but also our own. In fact, if I had the time and resources, I would love to create a different video sha
by vouaobrasil 3y ago
Yes, I do agree with you. It is not just Google's greed but also our own. In fact, if I had the time and resources, I would love to create a different video sharing site.
It would be a site that is like YouTube but only allows 1080P video (to save on hosting). It would take a few minutes, maybe 5 to load a video, to save on bandwidth. It would have a limit on video length as well maybe,
It would also not have any analytics or recommendation algorithm, and it would have a modest paid tier (2$ a month for some additional features). It might have a Patreon-like feature from which I would take a modest percentage, just to pay for hosting.
Instead of a recommendation algorithm, it would have some basic categories and new videos would just appear in the categories that you subscribe to, but only sorted by date.
It would be a slower, simpler site for genuine video sharing, but with some limitations to keep things realistic. I am being 100% serious: I do think a slower, more modest site with less features would be quite nice, sort of like Medium but for video.
- ddorian43 3y ago> would be quite nice, sort of like Medium The worst example possible.
- vouaobrasil 3y agoMedium has its problems but at least it is trying to find another business model besides the ad-only kind, and that in itself is laudable.
- iamgpt 3y agoMedium employs the worst kind of ad-business model. I'm not referring to traditional ads but to the practice of imposing a corporate paywall (which is akin to an ad since it's not your paywall but the company's) to entice users into paying Medium for content that they don't even own. Additionally, they pay creators peanuts through an opaque monetization system. It's reminiscent of every other content aggregator website now.
- jefftk 3y agoI don't see how taking 5min to start playing a video saves you much on bandwidth? I see how you save by accepting somewhat longer start times, and more variance, but even with the delay you're still paying to transfer the same number of bytes.
- vouaobrasil 3y agoWell, it would load the video more slowly, thereby causing people to watch fewer videos. Their selections would be more thoughtful and more focused rather than frenetic and shallow.
- jefftk 3y agoOr people would set lots of videos to load in background tabs but only get around to watching some of them.
- thunky 3y agoOr more likely they wouldn't even use the site.
- jefftk 3y agoAnother way to reduce bandwidth costs!
- vouaobrasil 3y agoI'd like to think I could cultivate a decent user base through decency and keep those types away. Plus I would add some technological features to make it only attractive to people who want a more deliberate experience.
- repelsteeltje 3y agoI think the point of Google's media distribution infrastructure isn't just bandwidth or providing ingest and playback that "just works". (That, indeed is what I personally would be interested in.) The "infrastructure" to the bigger audience is about * being available ubiquitously and recognized as a brand * discoverability, search, recommendations, filling you free time with cat videos, memes * being a platform for wannabee influencers with real advertisers money in the form of pennies offered to creatives Especially the latter two need to continuously monitor every little move happening in the "attention market".