Live data from Hacker News

Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

digiday.com

31–40 of 87 posts

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#31
post #9

Youtube 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.

Youtube piggy backs on Google logins, so if you're signed into gmail, you'll be a logged in user.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#32
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't hardware (server space, bandwidth and latency) the real problem, with streaming video?

No, cost for that is constantly reducing. The problem is getting people to pay attention to what you make.

You do the same thing people do to get attention for their text blog - the usual publicity approaches.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#33
post #9

Youtube 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.

Youtube piggy backs on Google logins, so if you're signed into gmail, you'll be a logged in user.

But you can watch videos without being logged in.

Which for me is a big benefit when I'm not using a device that I own. I don't have to worry about logging in at all.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#34
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely would not say it is a sizable portion. I'd say it is infact a minority of Youtube's audience. Their CEO revealed they have 1.8b logged in users [1] every month watching videos. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/3/17317274/youtube-1-8-billi...

But do they log in consistently? I log in by mistake every now and then, but I use it without being logged in 99.9% of the time.

This isn't a huge percentage of the time for me, but I often use a device that isn't logged into anything because it's using the android builtin browser, someone elses computer, etc. Not having to care about logging in is a benefit.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, cost for that is constantly reducing. The problem is getting people to pay attention to what you make.

You do the same thing people do to get attention for their text blog - the usual publicity approaches.

Not sure if you’ve noticed, but the blogosphere ain’t what it once was.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#36
post #9

Youtube 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.

I definitely would not say it is a sizable portion. I'd say it is infact a minority of Youtube's audience. Their CEO revealed they have 1.8b logged in users [1] every month watching videos. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/3/17317274/youtube-1-8-billi...

Sizeable and minority are two totally different markers of scale. 25% of something is a sizeable chunk, but still the minority...

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#37
I've always seen Youtube as much higher quality than facebook. More than being accessible to everybody regardless of being logged in or not, their players have always been top notch for me. I've always associated Facebook videos with low quality content that I see scrolling through a newsfeed, and FB video has always been noticeably buggier than Youtube.

The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. If I want to binge something in the background or watch AvE tear apart power tools (seriously, he's awesome) I go to Youtube. I've never gone to Facebook when I wanted to watch video content.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#38
post #9

Youtube 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.

Can confirm. I don't have a google account or a facebook account. I watch videos on youtube and it functions perfectly. However facebook is totally unusable without an account.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#39
post #9

Youtube 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.

> Youtube 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 think it's something a bit more general: Facebook is all about getting people to do, right now, what's good for Facebook, and it's willing to break things and get in your face to accomplish that.

Youtube, and Google generally, seem to be much more OK with just providing a consistent, approachable service; and letting the users use it naturally. In the long term, that seems like the better strategy because it doesn't burn trust like it grows on trees.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#40
post #37

I've always seen Youtube as much higher quality than facebook. More than being accessible to everybody regardless of being logged in or not, their players have always been top notch for me. I've always associated Facebook videos with low quality content that I see scrolling through a newsfeed, and FB video has always been noticeably buggier than Youtube. The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another fea…

It depends on how you measure things.

Youtube is a higher-quality video content site. It has lots of experience serving this type of content.

But as a social network, Youtube is gutter-quality, the worst of the worst. The kind of social network whose more disgruntled content providers are literally trying to murder the people running the site and whose comment section is infamous for being something like the most awful part of Internet.

Post reply on HN