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

51–60 of 87 posts

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

#51

Post by ambicapter »

mistermann wrote: post #50
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…

> clone of YouTube in way under a year.

Probably because some aspects of computer science/website engineering are not entirely nailed down and years of experience still count for something.

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

#52

Post by codeinvain »

pishpash wrote: post #4
mozumder wrote: post #3

There'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.

setting the discovery issue aside, there are SaaS companies like cloudinary.com that take care of all the transcoding / delivery / device matching stuff

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

#53

Post by facetube »

ggg9990 wrote: post #45

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.

Twitter consistently pulls an absurdly low bitrate for the first 3-5 seconds of a video regardless of available bandwidth and it is maddening.

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

#54

Post by joe_the_user »

losteric wrote: post #44
mattnewton wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed - but youtube allows itself to become a public forum for the propagation of this stuff and it's hard not to see that as worse.

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

#55

Post by iagovar »

facetube wrote: post #53
ggg9990 wrote: post #45

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.

Twitter consistently pulls an absurdly low bitrate for the first 3-5 seconds of a video regardless of available bandwidth and it is maddening.

The only adjective I'd put for Twitter video experience is shit. I really hate it.

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

#56

Post by creato »

joe_the_user wrote: post #54
losteric wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Indeed - but youtube allows itself to become a public forum for the propagation of this stuff and it's hard not to see that as worse.

The problem seems to be limited to the mega-popular content, and it doesn't really seem that different from news website comments. For niche channels that match my interests (10k-1M views per video), the comments are actually generally fairly pleasant and sometimes interesting.

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

#57

Post by stochastic_monk »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #25

Working for a major Canadian multimedia company (including some reputable magazines). Brightcove is pretty much at the core of it. Youtube is a sometimes, or just another endpoint. Facebook Live was used a few times but I haven't heard much from that lately.

It got a lot of press for live streaming literal murders, rapes, and child molestation.

I haven’t heard anything about it since, but, then again, I don’t use Facebook.

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

#58

Post by throwawayqdhd »

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…

I'm an amateur musician and YouTube is my first stop whenever I'm trying to learn a new technique in Ableton or find music in a specific genre

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

#59

Post by pavs »

toasterlovin wrote: post #29
krapp wrote: 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.

Constantly reducing is not the same as less expensive. Independent video streaming is still very expensive, both in hardware cost and bandwidth cost, and if you have a global audience, then you will have to rely on CDN, which for video is not cheap at all.

Youtube for the longest time, ran on loss - until recently. Only after Google had reliable penetration all over the globe using their on-premise GGC (aka google CDN) solution, which relies on the user (ISP) bearing the cost of hosting the hardware and the bandwidth that run through it, that now Youtube has the infrastructure to make it profitable.

I don't honestly see youtube being seriously challenged. Yes, there might be pockets of competitions - but far far from a serious challenge.

Unless an individual producer has very high marketable demand that he can get a premium price from advertisers or charges users per video, I don't see how hosting videos for individuals is profitable. Corporations are a different story, and even they often rely on Youtube.

Post reply on HN