How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com • Hacker News Board

Re: How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com

#51

Post by aexol » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

itcrowd wrote: post #31

aexol wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If somebody is too lazy too read. Search providers have to publish their search algorithm inside European union within one year from the date of publication

Sounds like a bold claim .. and yes it is. Only the "main parameters" must be published. From your source ( emphasis mine ): > Providers of [..] online search engines should not be required to disclose the detailed functioning of their ranking mechanisms, including algorithms , under this Regulation. [..] > A general description of the main ranking parameters should safeguard [against bad faith manipulation of rankin…

It's the first step. If everybody will report criminal behavior( if seen ) of some of Tech Giants, then we can move this mountain.

Re: How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com

#52

Post by sct202 » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

TACIXAT wrote: post #11

This is interesting. I'm starting to make a computer security course right now and I've chosen to put it on pornhub. The monetization options are better for creators (I can sell videos!). Obviously, pornhub is going to restrict the audience a bit, so I've been toying with the idea of making a video hosting site with solid monetization options and categories of ads beyond porn. I think the biggest thing I don't unders…

Is there a reason you wouldn't use Udemy or one of the other websites like that?

Re: How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com

#53

Post by xiphias2 » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

devmunchies wrote: post #32

privateSFacct wrote: post #14

This article should say - you can't compete with google using google. The "final blow" was adsense being cutoff. Their revenue model to compete with google was ... adsense. OK. Their traffic model was google search. Ok. Between the lines it sounds like some aggressive SEO, and maybe the network click bounce thing (you click on one video, and then it clicks through to another site etc). Be curious what their content m…

Haven’t used reddit in over a year and hardly visit YouTube. #1 competitor for my time is reading a book. The freedom and clarity I feel now that I’m not plugged in to these types of social networks makes me believe reddit is also “disgusting trash”.

What's the problem with YouTube?

If I'm interested in a subject / person, I try to both read about it and listen video about it / from him. I found that the two information sources are often complementary.

Re: How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com

#54

Post by nosefrog » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

I have a hard time believing that their website was more popular than YouTube. I remember using loads of different video streaming services before YouTube was bought by Google (e.g. Vimeo, Google Videos, etc) and I've never heard of livevideo.

Also, Google Videos was Google's own YouTube competitor from before they bought YouTube, which arguably was anti-competitive because it was much easier to search for Google Videos from Google than for YouTube videos.

The more likely explanation for why their search rank plummited is their shady backlinking between their properties.

> The only one that survived was Justin. That eventually became twitch because they picked video games as a category and just eliminated everything else. And YouTube didn’t really go after one market like that. They went after all video on the internet, so Google let them kind of have video games and that was it.

Their explanation for why Twitch succeeded doesn't hold water. My understanding is that video gaming is currently one of the most popular categories on YouTube today and probably has been since the beginning (e.g. PewDiePie started as a video gaming youtuber). They're directly going after Twitch with YouTube Gaming. And Twitch obviously hasn't been deplatformed by Google Search.

Re: How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com

#55

Post by mattlondon » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

> I should be a multimillionaire ... we should have been what ... a major competitor of YouTube and we should be a multibillion dollar Unicorn Tech Company. And the only reason we’re not is because of anti competitive behavior from Google

Hmm ok. Are you sure that was the only reason?

All those organic links from those 74 million of websites do not disappear even if you do disappear from the search results.

The mention that google executives contacted them to discuss the $3,000 a month he could of made if he ran google ads - that is genuinely peanuts. This makes me think that was a really small operation that didn't have a hope in hell in going big and competing with vimeo or dailymotion, let alone google. For comparison I was running an AdSense site around the same time and was easily clearing £800-1000 (approx $1500 I guess) a month with only about 150,000-200,000 visits/month (CPMs were higher in those days - I get about the same traffic now but only about £150-300 a month now)

If you these google "executives" (p.s. these wont have been "executives" wasting their time on a tiny publisher like this, you'd be lucky to even get a call from an actual google employee at that size - any tiny publisher deals like this would be farmed out to third party "partner" companies... the real actual executives would be talking to the New York Timess/Conde nasts/ESPNs of the world where the serious money is worth their time) are suggesting you could get up to $3,000 a month then sorry you were never destined for the big time.

Sounds like those 74 million (74,000,000 sites linking to you - that is loads) sites sending traffic your way were actually only sending in a trickle of users otherwise you'd be able to sell a lot of advertising. Even if each site only sent a single measly user per month, 74,000,000 visitors a month is a chunky visitor base and would easily net you more than $3,000 - even with a CPM of 25c ("good" publishers can expect rates well in excess of this - easily $1 and perhaps $3,4 or even 5 for really top-tier stuff) you'd be looking at about $18,500 a month. You'd easily be able to do direct deals with advertisers and get better CPMs at that sort of level.

Start ups fail all the time. It is hard and it is sad but I don't like it when people don't accept responsibility for their own failures though. This attitude of "it was everyone's fault apart from mine!" annoys me a lot

Re: How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com

#56

Post by magicalist » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

defen wrote: post #42

tptacek wrote: post #6

From what I can tell, this is the story of a 2006-2008 Youtube also-ran that was outbid by Google for celebrity content, had copyright and inappropriate content problems, kept an adult content section on their website, and depended on AdSense for their revenue. I don't see where the concept of "deplatforming" fits into the narrative provided. You can check their old site out on Archive.org (the pages all seem to have…

I agree with most of your comment, but Youtube also had copyright problems at that time. Viacom sued them for $1 billion in 2007 (settled out of court for an undisclosed sum in 2014).

> Viacom sued them for $1 billion in 2007 (settled out of court for an undisclosed sum in 2014).

(...after the district court found in favor of youtube and after it came out that some of Viacom's claims were for things that other parts of Viacom had uploaded for publicity)

Re: How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com

#57

Post by bduerst » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #20

privateSFacct wrote: post #14

This article should say - you can't compete with google using google. The "final blow" was adsense being cutoff. Their revenue model to compete with google was ... adsense. OK. Their traffic model was google search. Ok. Between the lines it sounds like some aggressive SEO, and maybe the network click bounce thing (you click on one video, and then it clicks through to another site etc). Be curious what their content m…

Nothing you said is wrong, but that is part of the problem right? To do anything online, you have to use google to some extent, so how can you compete in the first place? Google is already a monopoly in search which makes it impossible to make something online that requires search (ie., almost everything) and have it properly compete.

Not quite.

First, Google isn't a monopoly on search. Popular? yes. Best product? For most use cases, yeah. The fact that the search competition is a click away makes it dominant in the market but not a monopoly or monopsony.

Second, companies are doing fine in this regard by bypassing Google. There are online businesses that exist solely on Amazon and Instagram. Building out a strong social presence is one way to get traffic without relying on Google search. Several major content hosting sites (images/gifs) have taken off in part because of their social saturation.

Is it easy? No, but to GP's point it doesn't sound like they were being strategic in this regard either.

Re: How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com

#58

Post by jdtang13 » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

The article is 90% delusional

Re: How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com

#59

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 9:30 PM UTC

mysticlabs wrote: post #39

tptacek wrote: post #6

From what I can tell, this is the story of a 2006-2008 Youtube also-ran that was outbid by Google for celebrity content, had copyright and inappropriate content problems, kept an adult content section on their website, and depended on AdSense for their revenue. I don't see where the concept of "deplatforming" fits into the narrative provided. You can check their old site out on Archive.org (the pages all seem to have…

The sites were delisted from search engines despite content moderation being put in place. That is deplatforming. The adult content was put behind a mature section where ads weren't run against the mature content. LiveVideo and the parents companies network of sites were deplatformed from search results. Delisting competitors from search results who are meeting all of the requirements of their advertising policies at…

Just to be clear, and without engaging in any other part of your comment: the AdSense guidelines forbid ads on pages that link to or otherwise promote adult content, which this site surely did.

Re: How I tried to compete with YouTube and Google with Livevideo.com

#60

Post by dalore » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #33

privateSFacct wrote: post #14

This article should say - you can't compete with google using google. The "final blow" was adsense being cutoff. Their revenue model to compete with google was ... adsense. OK. Their traffic model was google search. Ok. Between the lines it sounds like some aggressive SEO, and maybe the network click bounce thing (you click on one video, and then it clicks through to another site etc). Be curious what their content m…

> The paying of creators definitely anti-competitive It's really not any different than what Netflix is doing now, right? Discounting SEO, the major issue was that they didn't build their own ad network. You set up business in Google's front yard and didn't like it when they told you to get out. The ad network (or rather the monetization model) is the hardest part of building a video sharing site. If that part wasn't…

From the article:

> he walked away with about $50 million when News Corp purchased my space. He should have walked away with a lot more

He thinks that News Corp should have paid more for myspace? Because they got so much value from it.