I'm exactly the same. Some favourites I've collected over the years: 3Blue1Brown - math essays AlfieAesthetics - Bushcraft, botany and survival skills with some fun english humour mixed in CNLohr - fun hardware hacking livestreams Eliminator Performance - mechanical troubleshooting and maintenance vlogs Engineering Explained - Automotive engineering explainers and mini-lectures FearlessFront - Mechanical engineering,…
Good list! I met Rick Beato at Summer NAMM this year. Really nice guy. 12tone - Excellent music theory in fast, whimsically illustrated episodes agadmator - Best chess channel I've found
I'll second you on agadmator, the explanations are excellent.
Nerdwriter is just psuedo-intellectual trash that panders to already popular opinions
I'm not really qualified to be able to tell the difference; what makes you say that?
He tends to over-explain things and perhaps looking too deeply into things that aren't there. He does have a substantial following, so there must be a lot of people who like that style.
A bigger question is if Netflix can continue to thrive in a world where all the large media companies create their own Netflix-like streaming services. Disney has their own coming soon, apple, Amazon, Facebook, Hulu, Comcast, etc etc. Content costs continue to rise, and competition will be fierce. Netflix has a great head start and knows its audience well. But much larger companies are knocking on its door.
IMO Netflix has done well in this regard by transforming themselves into a content company rather than a content delivery service. Recently most of my favorite shows on Netflix have been 1st party titles, and I can't think of another content producer who's output is as varied and as high-quality as Netflix at the moment. Maybe Disney has the IP and the raw muscle to pull this off, but they will have to prove it. I ac…
HBO is infinitely more valuable to me as a producer of quality content.
I actually can't remember the last time a Netflix show has brought me as much fulfillment and joy as almost anything on HBO.
I don't necessarily agree with this. If I want to watch well produced online content, I do not think Youtube.com. I do think that Netflix and amazon Prime video have "traditional" studio created content that has high production value. That said, I watch youtube and Netflix almost equally, but for different reasons. Youtube is great for short videos, interviews and niche interest. IF I want to watch scripted drama lik…
Interestingly there's no mention of HBO here (nor in sibling comments), a very high production value content which imo is running circles around Netflix and Prime.
Agreed.
As far as I'm concerned, almost everything on HBO is worth watching.
But almost nothing on Netflix is worth watching anymore. The quality bar has lowered so much over the years.
Fair point. I think Captain Disillusion is a good example of this, his production value is extremely high with regards to visual effects for what is a fairly niche subject matter.
Still, imagine if he got a Netflix deal(how awesome would that be), the production value would go up
To me it is perfect expansion for Netflix.
Youtube offers a universal service provision, Netflix could carefully cherry-pick the top youtubers and offer them the money.
They are competitors - for your eyeballs. Just because they don't provide precisely the same service doesn't make them non-competitors. Youtube competes with Netflix the same way your shower length preference competes with Netflix. The disconcerting (if not narcissistic) elephant in the room being that service providers are viewing any activities that cause you to spend time away from their service as "competition" a…
I don't really understand this. Netflix cares about how much you watch it ONLY if it means you will stop your subscription. In fact, as long as you keep your subscription their interest is that you watch as few as possible to minimize costs, right? So a few addictive shows that make you need to keep Netflix are betters than keeping you on Netflix all day every day. If Netflix cannot be replaced by Youtube, it is not…
Not quite, at least from what Netflix has publically stated about its content strategy. Each time Netflix produces content, they view that content as having very diminished value for the customer that has already watched it, but that new content has made its subscription offering more value to the next potential customer. With this line of thinking, Netflix probably doesn't want you to every "finish" its catalog. I think there are exceptions given what Netflix paid to keep Friends. But, my guess says they found that most content does not get repeat viewership, which is much different than music for instance.
> I don't necessarily agree with this. If I want to watch well produced online content, I do not think Youtube.com (...) Youtube is great for short videos, interviews and niche interest. IF I want to watch scripted drama like NARCOS, I can't find anything close to that on Youtube. That's orthogonal though, since people don't split equally their viewing habits based on content types. So if, e.g. younger generations, w…
What remains to be seen is whether the demographic trends here are due to fundamental differences in what gen Z kids are interested in, or whether it's just a function of the fact that YouTube is free, and Teenagers don't have money, and your parents can't see what you've been watching like they can if you use their Netflix login. It would be like looking at transportation data and concluding that since teenagers ten…
On the other hand, what teenagers are used to watching, they can take to their adult life.
The same way languages and idioms CS students learn in college influence what happens in the enterprise later on.
A generation back everybody just watched TV -- kids AND parents. So this is new-ish.
And they both suck. Netflix content is weak. The catalog outside US is terrible. YouTube ads are annoying yet original content is not worth the price for Premium. At a price point of $12 it's ridiculous. Music catalog is sub-par and not worth the switch from Spotify. Both seem to be more dedicated to push PC propaganda than matching what viewers want. Original content is quite bad save for some exceptions (Wild Wild…
> Both seem to be more dedicated to push PC propaganda than matching what viewers want. I agree 100% with the rest of your comment but I genuinely don't understand this claim?
> I agree 100% with the rest of your comment but I genuinely don't understand this claim?
It is a dog whistle for "I'm a bigot". A good technique to filter trash is to stop reading when you see somebody use "SJW" in a non-ironic way. It basically means they aren't worth talking to.
Well they do have a paid version which doesn't have ads.
That only applies to the ads from Google, not from content creators themselves. And it is three times more expensive than Netflix where I live. I don't see the value proposition there.
> not from content creators themselves
They gotta eat too, you know. Some of the channels I watch cost real cash-money for the creators to produce.
Youtube is KING! Even if 99.9999% of the content sucks you still have thousands of great videos. Like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBmnQN78aZU Matthias Wandel. Scripted shows are terrible. Movies are terrible. Edufun is where it is at. I think that we need more people compiling the best of videos on Youtube.
Sad you get downvoted. I too think YouTube is the future of content consumption. I am perpetually amazed how much reasonably high quality stuff exists on youtube. Damn near 100% of the screen time I have control over is youtube videos. If I was single and living alone, all I would need is youtube.