3 ms·

It's because Vimeo decided fairly early on that they weren't going to be YouTube. They remove stuff like gameplay videos, which means no lets plays, but that al

It's because Vimeo decided fairly early on that they weren't going to be YouTube. They remove stuff like gameplay videos, which means no lets plays, but that also means no low quality lets plays. Thus if you find a link to a video on Vimeo there's a good chance there's some semblance of quality. Especially if it's a gaming video, because they do allow machinimas. They fostered that artsy niche and in the process became something totally different from YouTube.

brownbat 13y ago
I'm surprised the uploaded video services haven't fragmented as much as news aggregation. There are a dozen news + comments that all have a slightly different threshold for what stays on the site, determined by the tastes of the community. Why haven't more video sites emerged with a similar ethos?
- hiyou102 13y ago
  I'm assuming it's because hosting a video site is still a very costly venture and the fact that many content creators started on YouTube. Since the bulk of their views are on YouTube they aren't going to move, especially if their livelihoods are at stake. Also, the difference between YouTube and news sites is that the both the content and the and the aggregation is happening on the same site. That means that they are tied to each other which ties the user there as well.
- fpgeek 13y ago
  > Why haven't more video sites emerged with a similar ethos? Because if they touched commercial music or video at all (even by accident or if it's fair use), they'll be sued into oblivion and/or asked to implement the same level of "content protection" YouTube has today (effectively the same thing because a startup video site wouldn't have the resources for that). Remember, the only reason YouTube exists today in any sort of recognizable form is that they got together with Google's checkbook and Google's lawyers. That gave them the legal ammunition to force some kind of settlement (albeit a deeply flawed and problematic one, between ContentID and non-DMCA takedowns, among other things). If a YouTube competitor is going to emerge, it's going to come from a big company. That's not impossible, but most (all?) of the likely candidates would bring their own (similar or different) serious flaws to the table. And even then they'd need to develop a "content protection" scheme roughly as good as YouTube's - which would take serious machine learning chops on top of everything else, whittling the list even further.

brownbat 13y ago

I'm surprised the uploaded video services haven't fragmented as much as news aggregation. There are a dozen news + comments that all have a slightly different threshold for what stays on the site, determined by the tastes of the community. Why haven't more video sites emerged with a similar ethos?

hiyou102 13y ago
I'm assuming it's because hosting a video site is still a very costly venture and the fact that many content creators started on YouTube. Since the bulk of their views are on YouTube they aren't going to move, especially if their livelihoods are at stake. Also, the difference between YouTube and news sites is that the both the content and the and the aggregation is happening on the same site. That means that they are tied to each other which ties the user there as well.
fpgeek 13y ago
> Why haven't more video sites emerged with a similar ethos? Because if they touched commercial music or video at all (even by accident or if it's fair use), they'll be sued into oblivion and/or asked to implement the same level of "content protection" YouTube has today (effectively the same thing because a startup video site wouldn't have the resources for that). Remember, the only reason YouTube exists today in any sort of recognizable form is that they got together with Google's checkbook and Google's lawyers. That gave them the legal ammunition to force some kind of settlement (albeit a deeply flawed and problematic one, between ContentID and non-DMCA takedowns, among other things). If a YouTube competitor is going to emerge, it's going to come from a big company. That's not impossible, but most (all?) of the likely candidates would bring their own (similar or different) serious flaws to the table. And even then they'd need to develop a "content protection" scheme roughly as good as YouTube's - which would take serious machine learning chops on top of everything else, whittling the list even further.