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

141–150 of 152 posts

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

#141

Post by nemothekid »

singron wrote: post #89
bduerst wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, by all accounts and signals, Youtube wasn't profitable for a decade and reportedly barely manages to break even today with a billion users.

Do you have a source for this? YouTube isn't broken out separately in Alphabet earning reports and the last anyone authoritative talked about YouTube finances this way was several years ago AFAICT.

There are no hard sources other than "Susan said they weren't profitable" back in 2016.

https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-woj...

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

#142

Post by sct202 »

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…

So I was looking at old blog posts about LiveVideo and saw a reference to a rumor that LiveVideo paid off creators to cause the initial jump from Youtube to LiveVideo. There might have been a lot of shady dealings on both sides, but it was so long ago someone from each side should be able to do a tell all with the actual details. http://willvideoforfood.com/2007/02/07/livevideo-vs-youtube-...

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

#143

Post by nemothekid »

korzun wrote: post #110
nemothekid wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least nowadays, network traffic is cheap. But it's not. Your example is contrived, as Hetzner likely doesn't expect you to stream a 100 hours of 1080p HD content to 100 people simultaneously . Your users would have a laughably bad experience at scale. On a single box, it's unlikely you could max out your throughput - you could at most support 45 users on a single Hetzner node (1080p @ 22Mbps on a Gigabit connect…

Akamai? Really. Either way, most of the ad revenue tends to come from the United States; the CDN is far from a requirement.

How would you build a video streaming service without a CDN? A CDN doesn't just solve the content distribution problem - it also solves the bandwidth problem.

With a 1Gig connection you can only serve ~45 concurrents streaming 1080p. If you wanted to support more than 45 concurrents, you would need

1. To distribute content to separate instances

2. A routing infrastructure to reliably route connections to that content.

And then, congrats, you have just built your own CDN - albeit in one datacenter. If you don't want your users on the other side of the country constantly complaining that your site is slow compared to Vimeo, you would have to build it on the other side as well.

If you believe your hodgepodge CDN is going to be much cheaper than Cloudfront (on the order of 1 Euro/month, where you could support it on ~1.5M views/month), then you should probably skip the whole video sharing nonsense, and get rich becoming a CDN provider :)

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

#144

Post by onemoresoop »

Reedx wrote: post #30
yongjik wrote: post #5

> At one point, I believe it was over 74 million and after a Google search change, that number went down to less than 12 million overnight, so all the backlinks, all the websites that were linking to my site, that boosted my rank, that gave my site a good search cloud. This was all organic. I did not use tricks or anything deceptive. This was all organic traffic. These were all organic backlinks and all of a sudden G…

Yeah, that sounds just like the conspiracy that Yelp shakes down restaurants if they don't pay. Yet still waiting to see actual proof of this.

It happened to a friend of mine last year. He has a small business, a family business and got harassed with dozens of calls to buy a Yelp package of around $1000 a month (which doesn't guarantee more sales, they just push ads, etc and maybe fake reviews). He told them he cannot afford that and not to be called anymore. Few days later two guys in suits showed up to at the business to try to convince him to sign up for the offer. He declined. The aftermath: his rating on their site dropped a few stars, good reviews are pending forever and a few bad ones skim to the top. This is a bad business model!

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

#145

Post by TACIXAT »

techsin101 wrote: post #126
TACIXAT wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlisted is not very well protected. Once someone has the url, it is out there. PH at least ties the purchases to an account. Sure, someone can download and throw them on torrents, but it feels less like leaving the barn door open. As for differentiation, simply, my course will be the best. It's designed to take you from zero to security analyst. Those MIT lectures are taught with chalk and don't lay the foundations…

Are you collecting emails for launch news, if love to check it out when it's out

I am not, but it is https://www.pornhub.com/model/cybering. Obviously, NSFW. It has the setup module right now, and an in progress command line basics. The topics will get more advanced after I get through the prerequisites. Thanks for checking it out!

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

#146

Post by bduerst »

singron wrote: post #89
bduerst wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, by all accounts and signals, Youtube wasn't profitable for a decade and reportedly barely manages to break even today with a billion users.

Do you have a source for this? YouTube isn't broken out separately in Alphabet earning reports and the last anyone authoritative talked about YouTube finances this way was several years ago AFAICT.

By "all accounts and signals", I mean it's basically rumored that Youtube was only barely able to break even with a billion users, which was the target set to make it profitable: https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f...

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

#147

Post by bduerst »

belorn wrote: post #132
mrep wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point. "A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" [0]. Bing exists so by definition, you are wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

If you have a problem with people using the word monopoly as synonymous with anti-trust then just interpret it as anti-trust and ignore the word. For example, Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning: Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade be…

Even so, by the definitions you're copying, Google's competition is still a click away for consumers.

Whether you use anti-trust synonymously with the word monopoly doesn't change the fact that Google will still show Bing and Yandex in the search results.

An example of anti-competitive behavior here is actually from Amazon, when they had de-listed Apple TV and Chromecast from their marketplace for years because it competed with their Fire Stick.

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

#148

Post by mrep »

Marsymars wrote: post #123
mrep wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely not a perfectly competitive market but this trope about GAFAM being monopolies is tiring. A monopoly can stagnate development on their product, raise prices and there's nothing customers can do because they have literally no other option. That is why monopolies are bad. If Google were to try and charge users for search, everyone would immediately switch to bing which keeps them in check from raising p…

The pedantry around the term "monopoly" is also a bit tiring. If you substitute "harmfully disproportionate market power" for "monopoly", the points most people are making remain similar.

Are you suggesting that we should ignore people misusing economic terms when discussing economic policy? I don't see how ignoring blatantly false facts is better than educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms.

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

#149

Post by mrep »

belorn wrote: post #132
mrep wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point. "A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" [0]. Bing exists so by definition, you are wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

If you have a problem with people using the word monopoly as synonymous with anti-trust then just interpret it as anti-trust and ignore the word. For example, Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning: Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade be…

> If you have a problem with people using the word monopoly as synonymous with anti-trust then just interpret it as anti-trust and ignore the word.

Are you suggesting that we should ignore people misusing economic terms when discussing economic policy? I don't see how ignoring blatantly false facts is better than educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms.

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

#150

Post by Faark »

mrep wrote: post #148
Marsymars wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pedantry around the term "monopoly" is also a bit tiring. If you substitute "harmfully disproportionate market power" for "monopoly", the points most people are making remain similar.

Are you suggesting that we should ignore people misusing economic terms when discussing economic policy? I don't see how ignoring blatantly false facts is better than educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms.

For a proper exchange of ideas to function, the listening side has to try it's best to interpret the message as intended. Yes, to a degree does that include ignoring misuse of language. That obviously doesn't mean you can never give any feedback.

> educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms

Where did you do that? The only recommendation for a better term I see is "harmfully disproportionate market power", still quite a usable mouthful and made by someone else. Your contribution seems to boil down to "your wrong", and I'm still unsure if this is intended to be about the use of the word or the actual point. Probably both, with one being secretly used to support the other.

Post reply on HN