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

Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#71

Post by rocqua »

pavs wrote: post #59
toasterlovin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, cost for that is constantly reducing. The problem is getting people to pay attention to what you make.

Constantly reducing is not the same as less expensive. Independent video streaming is still very expensive, both in hardware cost and bandwidth cost, and if you have a global audience, then you will have to rely on CDN, which for video is not cheap at all. Youtube for the longest time, ran on loss - until recently. Only after Google had reliable penetration all over the globe using their on-premise GGC (aka google CD…

A big CDN could do it, I think cloudfare recently launched a new video service. If they wanted to, they could build on that. More likely would be something like wordpress using this as a back-end. That feels like a great open-source project. Discovery could be done with RSS, trying to copy the podcast model.

Whilst its not great to replace one big company with another, it is at least good to have an alternative to keep youtube from being too crazy.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#72

Post by Lionsion »

mistermann wrote: post #50
cheeze wrote: post #37

I've always seen Youtube as much higher quality than facebook. More than being accessible to everybody regardless of being logged in or not, their players have always been top notch for me. I've always associated Facebook videos with low quality content that I see scrolling through a newsfeed, and FB video has always been noticeably buggier than Youtube. The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another fea…

> The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social…

> Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects ... clone of YouTube in way under a year.

Facebook's challenge, IMHO, isn't technical, it's cultural. Namely: it's transparently selfish and seems to mostly act for it's short term advantage. It doesn't know how to share a pie. It doesn't seem to have a consistent strategy for people to build around.

> most producers would clone their content to FB very quickly, especially smaller ones who are pissed off at demonetization.

> and the trust they've lost in the last year.

Facebook let social games get out of hand, then it kneecapped all the social game makers.

Facebook kneecapped people who learned to depend on FB Pages to reach their audiences, to force them to buy ads.

Facebook just kneecapped video producers, probably worse than Youtube did. They kneecapped the news media as well.

If I was a video content producer, I wouldn't use a Facebook Youtube clone, even if it seemed better. I'd expect to get kneecapped, probably in the 2-3 year timeframe.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#73

Post by 52-6F-62 »

kumarvvr wrote: post #27
52-6F-62 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're okay with more of a microfiche-style experience: https://www.pressreader.com/ Not sure if you can kill photos— but they're pretty essential to journalism.

My point is countless hours of dev time, resources and infrastructure is wasted on what is obviously a very bad design. Making a bad design, then overcoming the bad design with another piece of software is pure wastage of valuable resources. It's really sad. UX design does not get the authority it deserves.

Some publishers do better than others in that department. I can agree (from experience) that many run fast away from any dev work except for new plugins that return more data to the marketing and sales departments who come back with more requests for beating as blockers and direct ad insertion and the rest of it. It was very frustrating being somebody who knew how to build a better experience and see it rejected as bad business.

Edit: they have UX teams but they don’t leverage them because of a goofy allotment of any sanctioned development work to CAPEX which they never want to spend because they often have little of that but tons of OPEX. It drives the “just get it done” part of my mind crazy.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#74

Post by 52-6F-62 »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #57
52-6F-62 wrote: post #25

Working for a major Canadian multimedia company (including some reputable magazines). Brightcove is pretty much at the core of it. Youtube is a sometimes, or just another endpoint. Facebook Live was used a few times but I haven't heard much from that lately.

It got a lot of press for live streaming literal murders, rapes, and child molestation. I haven’t heard anything about it since, but, then again, I don’t use Facebook.

Right. I forgot about all that already. Good lord.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#75

Post by [deleted] »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #73
kumarvvr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is countless hours of dev time, resources and infrastructure is wasted on what is obviously a very bad design. Making a bad design, then overcoming the bad design with another piece of software is pure wastage of valuable resources. It's really sad. UX design does not get the authority it deserves.

Some publishers do better than others in that department. I can agree (from experience) that many run fast away from any dev work except for new plugins that return more data to the marketing and sales departments who come back with more requests for beating as blockers and direct ad insertion and the rest of it. It was very frustrating being somebody who knew how to build a better experience and see it rejected as b…

[deleted]

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#76

Post by mistermann »

Lionsion wrote: post #72
mistermann wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social…

> Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects ... clone of YouTube in way under a year. Facebook's challenge, IMHO, isn't technical, it's cultural. Namely: it's transparently selfish and seems to mostly act for it's short term advantage. It doesn't know how to share a pie. It doesn't seem to have a consistent strategy for peo…

Totally agree.

> If I was a video content producer, I wouldn't use a Facebook Youtube clone, even if it seemed better. I'd expect to get kneecapped, probably in the 2-3 year timeframe.

But unless any platform has an exclusivity clause, it's pretty risk free and largely effort free (a multi-platform deployment tool will emerge I'd think) for producers to publish to all platforms. Actually, if(!) platforms would cooperate, this would be nice because they could then differentiate on features.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#77

Post by eco »

amelius wrote: post #65
mistermann wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social…

> FB's weak links in my estimation are the stubborn insistence to have everything under Facebook.com (rather than a sibling site), and the trust they've lost in the last year. They have WhatsApp and Instagram under different names.

A few days ago I told my wife that Instagram was owned by Facebook and she was shocked. She had no idea. There are clues scattered around, mostly related to trying to get you to add your Facebook friends on Instagram or trying to get you to use Instagram more but not much else. I couldn't even find the word Facebook on Instagram's site just now (not even on their About Us page). It's probably on there somewhere but it seems to be pretty deliberately disassociated with Facebook.

I wonder if Facebook is treating Instagram like a second earth. If they ruin the first they still have a backup.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#78

Post by firmgently »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #26
kumarvvr wrote: post #11

I really hate these news sites that overload their sites with graphics like images and videos. I long for simple websites that dont have auto playing videos that are always on some corner even when scrolled down.

If you're okay with more of a microfiche-style experience: https://www.pressreader.com/ Not sure if you can kill photos— but they're pretty essential to journalism.

I like the sound of this but then I visited and my scrolling got jacked. Sideways. Infinitely. And an animated sidebar started appearing and disappearing, hiding and revealing sections, unloading and reloading them.

It was like using a microfiche while large boxes of whistles and bells were dropped on me from above.

So much effort to make a familiar, working UI feel clunky and uncomfortable.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#79

Post by 52-6F-62 »

firmgently wrote: post #78
52-6F-62 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're okay with more of a microfiche-style experience: https://www.pressreader.com/ Not sure if you can kill photos— but they're pretty essential to journalism.

I like the sound of this but then I visited and my scrolling got jacked. Sideways. Infinitely. And an animated sidebar started appearing and disappearing, hiding and revealing sections, unloading and reloading them. It was like using a microfiche while large boxes of whistles and bells were dropped on me from above. So much effort to make a familiar, working UI feel clunky and uncomfortable.

I can understand the frustrations at the ads after I said it was like reading microfiche...

but the scrolling is like reading library microfiche.

That left bar could use some work for sure though.

Re: Magazine publishers with video ambitions see YouTube as safer bet than Facebook

#80

Post by mistermann »

ambicapter wrote: post #51
mistermann wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social…

> clone of YouTube in way under a year. Probably because some aspects of computer science/website engineering are not entirely nailed down and years of experience still count for something.

Do you think I'm overestimating or underestimating?
Post reply on HN