Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#2Given YouTubes weird stances on content moderation, I'm not sure that's a wise bet.
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#3There's not enough open-source back-end tools that would allow a site to host and publish videos on their own, without going through a third-party service.
Where is the video equivalent to WordPress?
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#4There's not enough open-source back-end tools that would allow a site to host and publish videos on their own, without going through a third-party service. Where is the video equivalent to WordPress?
A site can't do that. You need a CDN and streaming transcoders, etc. Of course if you only have a few viewers then HTML5 will play your self-hosted video files but I don't you think that's what you mean.
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#5There's not enough open-source back-end tools that would allow a site to host and publish videos on their own, without going through a third-party service. Where is the video equivalent to WordPress?
Publishing is usually not the issue. The delivery is. Besides being it very expensive to re-encode, store and delivery content (in comparison to text), it's incredibly challenging to create good experience for the end user.
This is where companies like mux [0] come in the picture, but it's a paid product. YouTube is "free" with a chance to also generate, in some cases, pretty significant revenue stream.
[0] https://mux.com
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#6There's not enough open-source back-end tools that would allow a site to host and publish videos on their own, without going through a third-party service. Where is the video equivalent to WordPress?
A site can't do that. You need a CDN and streaming transcoders, etc. Of course if you only have a few viewers then HTML5 will play your self-hosted video files but I don't you think that's what you mean.
[deleted]
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#7There's not enough open-source back-end tools that would allow a site to host and publish videos on their own, without going through a third-party service. Where is the video equivalent to WordPress?
Discovery is the problem. If they’re on YouTube they can show up in people’s recommendation lists, target users with particular history, etc.
Hosting your own video means you’re not likely to catch users who are binge watching videos, which I would imagine is a more lucrative demographic for ad dollars.
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#8There's not enough open-source back-end tools that would allow a site to host and publish videos on their own, without going through a third-party service. Where is the video equivalent to WordPress?
Discovery is the problem. If they’re on YouTube they can show up in people’s recommendation lists, target users with particular history, etc. Hosting your own video means you’re not likely to catch users who are binge watching videos, which I would imagine is a more lucrative demographic for ad dollars.
Isn't hardware (server space, bandwidth and latency) the real problem, with streaming video?
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#9Youtube seems to offer a better user experience than facebook for users who don't have an account or aren't signed into an account. I have no data to back this up, but I suspect users with no accounts or users who aren't signed in account for a sizable portion of the youtube audience.
Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook
#10"...the shows are weekly, focus on evergreen topics and run up to eight minutes per episode..."
That's __obviously__ not a good fit for FB. Nothing more. Nothing less. To say anything more means someone has an ax to grind.
Perhaps the title oft his article should be: "Full Disclosure; Google Paid Me to Write This"?