Dvorak Adores YouTube 193
prostoalex writes "MarketWatch columnist John C. Dvorak tells the public to stop fretting about YouTube's business model and just start enjoying the functionality: "Since I like to run videos on my blog this turns out to be a great way to both transcode and save bandwidth since YouTube picks up the tab on the video stream. Would I pay for this service, yes. I have seriously looked at the alternatives to YouTube. With no exceptions they are all flawed.""
Dvorak's Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Well,... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why Slashdot.. why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Worrying warranted (Score:5, Insightful)
1. A high percentage of the videos they host are coyprighted, and shouldn't be there in the first place. There seem to be extremely lax checks and balances on this.
2. They're burning through money and, so far as we've seen, don't really have a plan for how to stop burning through money.
Whether Dvorak likes it or not, we've all seen the
Re:Oh Dvorak! (Score:2, Insightful)
Year ago I wanted to host a video (copyrights ok, politics content, not porn either) it was 10mb, most sites thought this was too big unless i paid to host it, What he got 'right' was that while restrictions might exist many of the competitors to youtube are lame and are unusable.
I did not want to pay to host it,or use my hosting, but i understand where the muppet is coming from on this.
I too agree that flash sucks but the premise is mpeg hosting is not that good so until something better comes along its the best option for now.
Where is leaves videobloging and intel (- its promoters) well thats not my problem.
I don't like youtube that much (Score:1, Insightful)
Video.Google.com may be harder to use and especially harder (if possible) to embed in your blog. But at least I can watch the videos beyond thumbnail size.
Also not every stupid thing is on video.google.com. Youtube is full of crappy videos.
Re:Dvorak's Right (Score:4, Insightful)
At least Google didn't have such high per-user bandwidth and Flash licencing expenses. Whatever YouTube comes up with for a money maker is something that the user base must accept, I mean, Napster wasn't embraced once they had a business model and has been a money sink since then. The text ads for Google worked out, but as I remember, there was no fall-back plan if that didn't work.
In an age where alleged hardware enthusiast sites need a dozen ads on every page of an article, I have to wonder by what means YouTube is going to be sustained.
Personally, I would not mind paying for premium features like better encoding and a full-screen playback feature. Maybe they have a for-pay IPTV-like app in the works, if you don't pay, you get the four-inch window available now. I would accept that, but would enough users upgrade?
Free bandwidth! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
You might have a point if YouTube charged for its videos. But it doesn't. You have no right to dictate how they distribute their content, and you also have no ground to stand on. If you want them to change, convince the 99% of people who are willing to "give something back" for *free* content and take two seconds of their time to install the *free* Flash player to switch to completely open, completely free software. Pick your battles, geez.
Why do people start ranting on and on about how *everything* should be free and open and then start blaming companies like YouTube who have to spend $1.5 million a month just to stay alive for not accomodating their unrealistic worldview when I suggest that maybe that's narcissistic and even stupid to think that the whole world has to accomodate your personal choice? Free, open source software has its place. As I said to begin with "If you don't want to install Flash player, fine" implying that it was your choice, but don't expect YouTube to bend over backwards to support your decision. Stop complaining.
Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Insightful)
You could say the same about Ann Coulter, but I'm still not prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Two things YouTube could make money on. (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be a huge chance to prove microtransactions. YouTube you let you tip without having money, those tips could then stay 'pending' until you deposit money to account for all your tips. Of course you could prefill your account as well if thats what you want. As its your not actually paying before you watch the video a non paid for tip wouldn't really hurt anyone.
Re:Worrying warranted (Score:5, Insightful)
The copyright violation videos are the only ones worth watching, and everyone knows it. If ALL copyrighted videos that had enforcement were removed, and out-of-business copyright holders of music videos had the plug pulled there, nobody would visit the site.
It's nice to have an easily accessible place to watch ultra-obscure music videos that take hours to download off of p2p networks and days to search for.
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, you're one of those dumbshits...
carry on then, I assume you never worked for an hourly wage? Never been paid on commission? Otherwise where do you get off equating Free software with communisism? Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, not private ownership of ideas.
Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, Dvorak is occasionally useful and mostly harmless, wheras Coulter is occasionally harmles and mostly terrible.