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

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

techpost.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 152 posts

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

#61

Post by izzydata »

darkpuma wrote: post #43
dageshi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pornhub probably could. They've got the tech, the traffic, the money, the advertising infrastructure, they've got everything they need to launch a youtube competitor because the big tech companies don't really touch porn.

> "the big tech companies don't really touch porn." Isn't that the case because mainstream American advertisers don't want anything to do with it? I don't think it's a matter of west coast tech companies being prudes, but rather tech companies appeasing big consumer goods companies that spend billions on advertising, like P&G, J&J, PepsiCo, etc. And those companies are in turn likely appeasing 'middle america' by try…

Anyone else find it mildly strange how such a huge portion of the economy functions solely on the production and consumption of terrible products such as soda?

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

#62

Post by [deleted] »

dalore wrote: post #60
nemothekid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#63

Post by the-rc »

yongjik wrote: post #50
blueboo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best practices are being followed now; but a large sales team at its worst more than ten years ago might be caught out in bad behavior. Less plausible is the scenario of failing as a result of ad-pay for search-play. If the equation is proven out, then he, a rational and effective founder, would’ve paid!—And his site would’ve played another day. Or are we supposed to read an implication that it was worth burning the…

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if, once in a while, an unscrupulous sales rep hinted that they can get their customers favorable search positions after buying ads. But I would be really surprised if anyone could follow through with their promises.

Most sales people at Google wouldn't even know where to start looking. They're more familiar with the ad systems. Heck, a lot of engineers couldn't tell you on the spot where to look or whom to inquire about ranking bugs. Add to that the big gulf between sales and engineering, not to mention the sometimes snobbish attitude of the latter toward the former. (”Sales people take our money and blow it on dinners with clients!", forgetting that the money often came in thanks to sales and that e.g. engineers on average traveled less often, but for quite longer).

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

#64

Post by rubberstock »

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…

Why don't you think that the hardest part is acquiring the viewers? At least nowadays, network traffic is cheap. You get 1TB for 1 euro [0]. You need 22 Mbps for 1080HD [1], which means you can stream 100 hours for 1 euro.

If you stream 5min clips, that's 1200 clips for 1 euro. There should be enough ad networks that offer 2 euro CPM to make a profit.

On the other hand, how can they make a profit if nobody is discovering their site?

[0] https://hetzner.de

[1] https://superuser.com/questions/434532/what-data-transfer-ra...

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

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”.

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by metildaa »

dalore wrote: post #60
nemothekid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It does seem a bit out of proportion, News Corp bought a business that proceeded to sink.

I think Peertube and other Fediverse stacks like Mastodon, Pleroma, Pixelfed & Lemmy will continue to bleed users from more traditional sites over the next few years. They've significantly lowered the barriers to running your own social site, creating a great variety of communities that otherwise would be much smaller or non-existent.

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

#68

Post by TACIXAT »

sct202 wrote: post #52
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?

I tried to make a udemy course a few years ago, same topic. My biggest issue was that I needed a complete course for that. Maybe my goals are too lofty, but I got 5 or 6 modules in and lost momentum. I wanted a place where I could post as I made things.

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

#69

Post by bduerst »

nosefrog wrote: post #54

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 Vid…

Also it's not good branding. I immediately thought this was LiveLeak, which is a different site than LiveVideo.

But you're right - there are lots of players who carved out niches on the market to be profitable, since hosting video content is expensive. Vimeo, Twitch, even LiveLeak, cater to specific content while the generalist Youtube burned money for over a decade. When all the other generalists were pivoting, LiveVideo plowed ahead with something that wasn't profitable. This post-hoc rationalization and finger pointing feels like sour grapes.

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

#70

Post by Chris_Chambers »

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…

Wow dude, you’re so above people who leave the shitty sites you like.
Post reply on HN