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

Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

ymcinema.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 317 posts

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#281

Post by throwaway81523 »

asdfaoeu wrote: post #213
spicybright wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add, this is why people serious about their business generally will enter into contracts with other businesses to ensure either side can't screw each other over. And it provides a clear transition plan if one party wants to leave.

For something thats $200/yr no one would be offering that.

What? Of course they would. Send salespeople over to your office to negotiate terms, probably not. Standard contract with clear statement of fees, durations, renewals, etc? Pretty much any subscription service will have that. VPS on an annual plan, for example.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#282

Post by plorkyeran »

hannasanarion wrote: post #260
nacs wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hvae you heard of Youtube? They'll even pay for the videos instead.

Youtube is ad-supported. You can't upload videos more than 15 minutes long without letting Youtube put preroll and mid-roll ads all over them, and the only access-control method it supports is "unlisted", where anybody with the URL can see it. Creators don't want to force their paying Patreon supporters to watch ads for content that they paid for, and that can be leaked to the whole world if somebody merely ctrl-vs a…

> the only access-control method it supports is "unlisted", where anybody with the URL can see it.

Google Workspace supports videos which are private to an organization, but it's annoying to use (you have to switch your active account to the Workspace one) and much, much more expensive than Vimeo's new pricing scheme if you used it just for private videos.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#283

Post by cruano »

mikechalmers wrote: post #176
bryans wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I was already paying $200 a year, which I think is pretty expensive," In other words, she has no idea what bandwidth or server costs are and doesn't realize Vimeo is definitely losing money on distributing her videos, but still arrogantly believes she is entitled to infinite bandwidth for free because "that's what YouTube does."

Why is it arrogant or entitlement when there are several services which allow video uploads for free, never mind $200/year? If you look at her play counts and read her position, I don't think there's indication of her expecting "infinite bandwidth".

Just because I gave you free candy doesn't mean you can go to the store and take it for free too

And if you want the free candy, stay with the guy giving you free candy don't complain about the rest

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#284

Post by mkishi »

bryans wrote: post #134
neilv wrote: post #29

This sounds like a potentially great business clarity move: > We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube” But this part -- bait&switch, with only one week to decide or move, (if that's accurate) -- is not what you want from your B2B solution provider: > “I was already paying $200 a year, which I think is pretty expensive,” [...] if she wanted to keep hosting her content on the site, she’d need to upgrade…

> "I was already paying $200 a year, which I think is pretty expensive," In other words, she has no idea what bandwidth or server costs are and doesn't realize Vimeo is definitely losing money on distributing her videos, but still arrogantly believes she is entitled to infinite bandwidth for free because "that's what YouTube does."

It's the customer's fault they didn't know Vimeo is losing money? A pretty big reason for that could be that they've been with Vimeo for over a decade in some cases and have always been led to believe they were paying for the service they were getting.

I'm confident customers' reactions would be very different had Vimeo told them "hey, you're actually costing us money, please upgrade to this plan that'll cost you about 30% more." In fact, Vimeo could have done that at 2x, 3x, 4x... But nope, let's pretend they're paying customers and reveal we've actually been subsidizing the service the whole time, but we need 17.5x the money now. And the customer is the arrogant one?

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#285

Post by throwaway81523 »

hannasanarion wrote: post #145
na85 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you find the $25k/mo figure? TFA says that her most popular video has less than a thousand views.

From her patreon. She has 5600 patrons and her only subscription option is $5/mo. Her videos have only 4-digit views, but they are all multiple hours long Vimeo is asking for around $7/hour of video/year.

"Less than 1000" is 3 digits rather than 4. What does the $7/hour mean? If it's $7/hour of viewing time, that is completely nuts. How many videos are there? If there is 1 video/week at 2 hours each and 1000 views each (this sounds like an overestimate), that's ~ 100k viewing hours, or 30 cents per hour, which seems like a lot, and it is a lower bound. At 1 mbit/second (this will vary but figure lots of mobile device clients) it's 45TB transferred or 7 cents per GB. Less crazy than AWS, but still pretty steep. Maybe this is an opportunity for someone. I'd like to know the actual numbers.

Added: is there really even such a thing as B2B video on any scale? I would almost never think of watching video as a good use of company time. Any idea how much of previous Vimeo content could be reasonably described that way?

EDIT: fixed math error.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#286

Post by neurostimulant »

fareesh wrote: post #40

We have used Vimeo for some corporate clients' customer facing websites. This is because Vimeo's embed offers: 1) No recommendations at the end 2) Customisable player controls 3) Control over where it can be embedded, etc 4) No ads The downside is that they don't have much transparency over TOS / content policy removals. We had a random violation in one instance where the uploader recorded a screencast of something.…

If you just use vimeo for video embeds, you can upload the videos into cloudflare stream instead as it supports embedding.

Interestingly, some schools block cloudflare stream though. Not sure if it's a common occurrence.

> 3) Control over where it can be embedded, etc

Is it still working now as most browsers are no longer sending referral domain on iframe requests?

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#287

Post by Ekaros »

ozim wrote: post #274
mikechalmers wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it arrogant or entitlement when there are several services which allow video uploads for free, never mind $200/year? If you look at her play counts and read her position, I don't think there's indication of her expecting "infinite bandwidth".

There are several services which allow video uploads for "free" not really for free. People have to understand that those companies are burning VC money to bait and switch people. It is basically "dumping" and starving any competition until they find way to extract money from users ... or just sell BS to investors that they will get money from users.

In general I'm starting to think that we should be worried with many of these "free" or VC funded services if there is a big market correction any time soon. It might be viable model currently, but clearly not forever... And I hope the legislation wisens up for next round. Clearly many markets just aren't healthy.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#288

Post by Ekaros »

chockchocschoir wrote: post #185
bryans wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I was already paying $200 a year, which I think is pretty expensive," In other words, she has no idea what bandwidth or server costs are and doesn't realize Vimeo is definitely losing money on distributing her videos, but still arrogantly believes she is entitled to infinite bandwidth for free because "that's what YouTube does."

Seems you are the one who doesn't have any idea about how much "bandwidth" really costs, which is $0. When peering happens, do you think they put quota on how much bandwidth you can send through? No, you have a throughput limit but then after that its unmetered. No way Vimeo is paying per TB served if they hope to one day make profits (unless they already do so). You can easily setup your own personal video hosting s…

The bandwidth itself maybe essentially 0$, but I don't think same can be said of hardware, physical space or power. Or even the contracts involved with these. So clearly price must be more than 0.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#289

Post by Ekaros »

marcosdumay wrote: post #235
kingkawn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the point seems to be getting her to leave, not giving her a thoughtful way to stay.

"We want you to leave" is a pretty ok thing for them to say. "You have a week to leave" is not. It's sleazy and unprofessional, and it's a signal that it's best for anyone to avoid them in the future.

Depends on the contract in place. If they have a clause allowing termination in weeks time then it's entirely professional.
Post reply on HN