Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

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

#41

Post by mattnewton »

joe_the_user wrote: post #40
cheeze wrote: 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 awf…

I feel like the reference to the San Bruno shooting is detracting from your point. There was one incident still under investigation, and your commment pluralized and generalized from that.

I agree with the sentiment though, I remember during the 2016 election debates in the US, watching the YouTube live comments fill up with Unicode-art swasticas and depictions of people with turbans and bombs being shot at from behind a wall, and just incoherient expletives and slurs peppered in between.

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

#42

Post by ekianjo »

slackoverflower wrote: post #21
JackCh wrote: 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...

>Their CEO revealed they have 1.8b logged in users

That's what you get when you are logged in in gmail at the same time. It's not like people WANT to log in on Youtube, it's just a side effect of a google account login on some other service.

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

#44

Post by losteric »

mattnewton wrote: post #41
joe_the_user wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 awf…

I feel like the reference to the San Bruno shooting is detracting from your point. There was one incident still under investigation, and your commment pluralized and generalized from that. I agree with the sentiment though, I remember during the 2016 election debates in the US, watching the YouTube live comments fill up with Unicode-art swasticas and depictions of people with turbans and bombs being shot at from behi…

Youtube seems worse because the comments are public and global... but same folks are posting the same bigotry on Facebook.

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

#45

Post by ggg9990 »

One thing is that various video domains have almost expected levels of quality. I assume that any video link to Facebook.com is likely garbage, and I almost always click a link to Vimeo.com, even though of course any file could be uploaded to either domain.

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

#46

Post by doh »

mozumder wrote: post #17
doh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://m…

Publishing is part of the problem. We need to be able to go from Final Cut Pro to web. It has the capability to deliver HTTP Live Streaming, but that's not supported in all browsers. Everything from between "Final Cut Pro" and "Web Browser" needs to be standardized with easy-to-use self-publishing capabilities. (The CDN can take care of the bandwidth)

All browsers (but Opera mini) support video [0]. There are standards all around video. The challenge is not in getting video from Final Cut Pro to a web browser, the challenge is to do it efficiently, economically with a good user experience.

CDN is the tiniest part of the whole process. Each video has to be re-encoded based on the device and network capabilities. CDN can the deliver anything anywhere. Also good video player is needed. Even with HLJ.js and Video.js it's a lot of work to put all of this together in a very user friendly way. And then you want to have cross device support and more. Video is just hard.

[0] https://caniuse.com/#feat=video

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

#47

Post by mistermann »

toasterlovin wrote: post #28
richsherwood wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s getting cheaper and cheaper to produce videos these days though. We’re kind of in the place that graphic design was in 10 years ago. As the equipment gets better, software more powerful, and generations of younger folks with substantial knowledge in the subject, the costs are going to go way down.

I’d say we’re at the end of the cost reduction curve. Capital requirements for video production have been minimal for a while. Costs are overwhelmingly people. People don’t get cheaper.

With the number of totally independent content producers on YouTube with extremely high production quality (often indistinguishable from professional TV shows), I honestly don't think cost/people is a big factor anymore, at all.

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

#49

Post by doomlaser »

cheeze wrote: 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…

The experience of watching a video on Facebook is not as smooth. Clicking the "full screen" button doesn't send you to full screen, but a bigger window that still has a social sidebar. That's annoying.

They need to fix that philosophy, because it was their avoidance of manipulative end user tactics in the early stage that helped them win out over MySpace.

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

#50

Post by mistermann »

cheeze wrote: 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…

> The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB.

Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social network to go with it, something Google can't bring to the table (they tried and failed). It could take them a long time to assemble critical mass of videos, but unless YouTube forbid it in their TOS (which I doubt, considering many people are openly advertising their steemit channels) most producers would clone their content to FB very quickly, especially smaller ones who are pissed off at demonetization.

FB's weak links in my estimation are the stubborn insistence to have everything under Facebook.com (rather than a sibling site), and the trust they've lost in the last year.

Post reply on HN