3 ms·

Are you sure about that? If facebook got the rights for the music videos and would integrate them tightly with the rest of their site, chances are that youtube

by kleiba 14y ago

Are you sure about that? If facebook got the rights for the music videos and would integrate them tightly with the rest of their site, chances are that youtube would start becoming irrelevant. You're right that right now youtube has got the users, but facebook does, too, and they especially have the users who are interested in music videos. That makes them especially attractive for remixers etc. too.

untog 14y ago
Are you sure about that? If facebook got the rights for the music videos and would integrate them tightly with the rest of their site, chances are that youtube would start becoming irrelevant. Not even slightly. Music videos are a market, but YouTube has hundreds of other reasons it is successful. It could lose music videos without breaking it's stride.
- kleiba 14y ago
  Yes. But I wonder if moving music videos to facebook would create a drain that eventually all other videos would follow.
  - untog 14y ago
    I very much doubt it. 90% of YouTube users post under aliases, some of which are an important part of their video identity. Posting to Facebook would ruin that. Simply put, Facebook is (in theory) for people you already know in real life. YouTube most definitely is not, and is an entirely different beast. Facebook is never going to have a 'VidCon' event.
confluence 14y ago
Global instantaneous video hosting infrastructure is a very tough nut to crack and is subject to economies of scale. My experience with Facebook video has been disappointing (improper caching/not enough resources) and at no fault of their own. Pushing Tbits of video each second around the world is much - much harder than hosting pictures and comments (which is what Fb does admirably). If Fb cracks video infrastructure - perhaps. But YouTube remains the king of video and anyone who wants to run content needs to be on YouTube (at least for the time being - subject to change at any time).
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  I've wondered before if Vevo does some sort of CDN style hosting outside of Youtube. Their videos seem to load at a different speed from the rest of the stuff on Youtube. I've got no evidence other than my own sketchy observation, but the though has crossed my mind several times.
  - confluence 14y ago
    VEVO is a highly viewed channel - hence probabilistically their videos are going to be viewed more often and use more bandwith. Hence, YouTube caches them more heavily (and distributes them closer to viewers) as a result to probabilistically reduce video latency and cost of hosting. Same with any highly viewed channel - they all load faster than say something new with ~1000 views which hits a foreign data centre hard disk instead of a localised CDN server's RAM.

by kleiba 14y ago

untog 14y ago

Are you sure about that? If facebook got the rights for the music videos and would integrate them tightly with the rest of their site, chances are that youtube would start becoming irrelevant. Not even slightly. Music videos are a market, but YouTube has hundreds of other reasons it is successful. It could lose music videos without breaking it's stride.

kleiba 14y ago
Yes. But I wonder if moving music videos to facebook would create a drain that eventually all other videos would follow.
- untog 14y ago
  I very much doubt it. 90% of YouTube users post under aliases, some of which are an important part of their video identity. Posting to Facebook would ruin that. Simply put, Facebook is (in theory) for people you already know in real life. YouTube most definitely is not, and is an entirely different beast. Facebook is never going to have a 'VidCon' event.

confluence 14y ago

Global instantaneous video hosting infrastructure is a very tough nut to crack and is subject to economies of scale. My experience with Facebook video has been disappointing (improper caching/not enough resources) and at no fault of their own. Pushing Tbits of video each second around the world is much - much harder than hosting pictures and comments (which is what Fb does admirably). If Fb cracks video infrastructure - perhaps. But YouTube remains the king of video and anyone who wants to run content needs to be on YouTube (at least for the time being - subject to change at any time).

waterlesscloud 14y ago
I've wondered before if Vevo does some sort of CDN style hosting outside of Youtube. Their videos seem to load at a different speed from the rest of the stuff on Youtube. I've got no evidence other than my own sketchy observation, but the though has crossed my mind several times.
- confluence 14y ago
  VEVO is a highly viewed channel - hence probabilistically their videos are going to be viewed more often and use more bandwith. Hence, YouTube caches them more heavily (and distributes them closer to viewers) as a result to probabilistically reduce video latency and cost of hosting. Same with any highly viewed channel - they all load faster than say something new with ~1000 views which hits a foreign data centre hard disk instead of a localised CDN server's RAM.