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.""
Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh oh (Score:3, Interesting)
--
Top Music Tones: Hourly updates of the top songs and albums [topmusictones.com]
Re:Uh oh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
Hi John! (Score:1, Funny)
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.
Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, Dvorak is occasionally useful and mostly harmless, wheras Coulter is occasionally harmles and mostly terrible.
Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Interesting)
Amen to that, Dvorak is a grumpy old fart like me, but harmless, whereas Coulter panders to the most dangerous extreme elements of US society. Apples and hand grenades.
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
whereas Coulter panders to the most dangerous extreme elements of US society.
No, no, no. Ann Coulter is GREAT! You just have to realize that she's not a political pundit, she's a comedian. Once you figure that out, you'll love her.
Re:Uh oh (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
Except, you can't libel public figures, whom Coulter targets.
Re:You're a moron (Score:2)
It means 'HATING the FEDERAL GOVT" not the people
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Informative)
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a n00b among us. Be gentle.
John Dvorak is not "just" a columnist, he's probably at least among the original columnists of the computer world. He's been writing for PC Magazine for as long as I can remember, including during its heyday when it was basically the reference of the industry.
For a few years during that time (and maybe even still), he had a column where he did nothing but throw out one-sentence predictions. Back then, he would have written something like "by next year, Apple will have switched to Intel CPU's" and people would have gone nuts on him. He made a lot of really outlandish predictions, but for a while it seemed like almost all of them were coming true. So people started paying attention. If you wanted to know where the industry was headed, no matter how unlikely it seemed, you read Dvorak. He got a lot of props because he made those true predictions that nobody else would make. Everybody else in the PC industry - even in PC Magazine - was very conservative about where the industry was headed at that time. They thought the industry had matured and was basically immune to further major upheavals. Dvorak knew better.
Of course, nowadays, he's basically a troll. He still throws out the occasional insight and has the occasional correct prediction, but over time he's morphed into the guy who just says outlandish things to get web site hits. This probably happened because of all the hate mail he used to get about his off-the-wall predictions. Over time, he seemed to grow to like playing the maverick. It wasn't his intent to do so originally, but now he's basically just playing a role. He's intentionally trying to incite.
So, these days you read him and take what he says with a grain of salt. Or just don't read him at all. But there are good reasons why there are people that pay attention to what he says.
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain it was a Dvorak column, back around 1994ish or so, that suggested that instead of using version numbers, software vendors should just use years, like car manufacturers do. Well, look what happened - not everyone does it of course, but starting with Windows 95 (still referred to as Windows 4.0 at that time), a lot of things have been named with a year instead of a version number.
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
Re:Uh oh (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
Perhaps they are just from outside of the USA - after all what overseas PC magazine would consider paying for the privilege of reprinting Dvorak's articles?
This could also be read as everyone else had to have their work looked at by an editor before it went to press - which has prevented others from making the "systems idle process is eating my CPU" comments that Dvorak get
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
since he posts on the internet, is kinda hard to stop him from speaking. and big as internet is, there's always people who likes to real a good ol' troll for the entertainment value.
heck, there's people who reads slashdot at -1 threshold...
is this kind of people who links dvorak on slashdot, digg and others. they're just spreading the fun. read dvorak as you'd read a satire and have fun.
Shocking revelations (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shocking revelations (Score:2)
Rich.
++++1 funny
Re:Shocking revelations (Score:2)
Dvorak's Right (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Dvorak's Right (Score:4, Interesting)
Out of curiousity, does anyone know what those Flash licensing expenses actually are?
On one hand, I could see Adobe rubbing their hands together with glee at having a customer that has such a huge need of their proprietary technology.
On the other hand, just about giving any necessary licenses away to encourage the success of YouTube is probably the smartest possible thing Adobe could do. I know a lot of people who never bothered to install/upgrade Flash, but have to watch videos on YouTube or one of its competitors. This kind of web site seems to be the first "killer app" to drive people to Flash in a while.
Re:Dvorak's Right (Score:2)
I hope you enjoy the video as much as I did.
Some of my screenshots feature the girl in the video, Mana, as wallpaper.
Oh no (Score:3, Funny)
..and Slashdot Love Dvorak.. (Score:5, Funny)
oh great (Score:3, Funny)
Oh Dvorak! (Score:5, Informative)
Youtube: founded February 2005.
Metacafe: founded July 2003.
And QuickTime files do not work well with YouTube, most of the time you end up with poor audio/video synchronization.
Another great article John!
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 suck
Dvorak on Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
My two cents.
Re:Dvorak on Slashdot (Score:2)
Remember: everyone on this Earth serves a purpose, even if it is merely to serve as a warning to other.
Meh. (Score:2, Interesting)
B) Google Video is better anyway. Youtube is just...... smells funny.
Next thing you know... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next thing you know... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Next thing you know... (Score:2)
Well,... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why Slashdot.. why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why Slashdot.. why? (Score:2)
Re:Why Slashdot.. why? (Score:2)
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:Worrying warranted (Score:2)
Re:Worrying warranted (Score:2)
They'll run adverts, and it will be very profitable.
And Google knows it.
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:Worrying warranted (Score:2)
Re:Worrying warranted (Score:2)
This doesn't mean they won't go after YouTube once it starts making MONEY off of it, as then everyone will want a piece of the pie. I don't think that day is soon, however.
Re:Worrying warranted (Score:2)
Does it matter?
Their major draw is centered on pirated content and comeons for porn sites, and they don't have a cash positive business model. What do you think?
blip.tv (Score:1, Informative)
Thanks, John (Score:5, Funny)
Since there are already about 54 zillion people using it, I'd say the public is unconcerned. Analysts like to speculate about YouTube's business model, but everyone else is already using the service. It's good of Dvorak to give YouTube his stamp of approval. Doubtless they'll see a noticeable spike in traffic from all of those people who were hesitant about using YT: "Gee, should I check out this link to a YT video of some kid singing in his underwear? Crap. I don't know. Dvorak hasn't weighed in on these guys yet. What to do, what to do?!
It *is* cool. (Score:3, Interesting)
I was even inspired to build a paper-clip motor [youtube.com] and upload it. It's fun -- and free; what's not to like?
Re:It *is* cool. (Score:2)
All of which have long been available elsewhere, in MUCH higher quality, in non-propritary formats you can play on any system, and with decent performance.
If Google Video would just improve their interface, so it's as easy to find (free) videos as YouTube, I suspect they'd die quickly.
Search for Pallywood (Score:2)
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:I don't like youtube that much (Score:2)
Check the bottom right corner of the YouTube player, where it says "Size". Click the right-hand button to play the video in full-screen.
Re:I don't like youtube that much (Score:2)
So whitelist the site already. (Score:2)
"Any sane browser" will allow the user to whitelist pop-ups from YouTube.
Online-only (Score:1)
Nevertheless, I love spending hours watching the Daily Show and Colbert Report clips!
- RG>
Simple Rule (Score:1, Troll)
Give Dvorak articles a category, please! (Score:5, Informative)
How long until Slashdot can get a category for articles by Dvorak? I'd really like the opportunity to be able to filter his stories from my front page.
Free bandwidth! (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Most video on YouTube isn't exactly original (Score:2)
Most of what's on YouTube seems to be from commercial content sources, usually movies and broadcast TV. I'm surprised the MPAA hasn't shut them down.
Most content seems to be recompressed, and badly, with huge blocky artifacts.
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:Two things YouTube could make money on. (Score:3, Interesting)
At the moment there are rampant copyright violations on YouTube. Despite that, nobody is making money from putting up their latest fandub or compilation of movie shots. The instant they add a means for people to make money off of other peoples content the crap will really hit the fan. I can't see it happening.
Pre- and post- advertisements, paid video links, advertising info to your youtube account, preferential viewing, ye
adcritic (Score:2)
Ew! Wash me off! (Score:2)
Functionality? What functionality? (Score:3, Interesting)
Functionality? What functionality? Since I don't use one of Macromedia's three approved operating systems, I can't watch any of their videos. Maybe if they decided to use something other than a proprietary video format, I might be able to. Hell, even patent encumbered MPEG4 is freer than this crap!
Re:Functionality? What functionality? (Score:2)
Pops [imageshack.us]
Re:Functionality? What functionality? (Score:2)
There is no alternative to Flash Video.
ALL other media players are flawed, freezes the browser while loading its components, or crashing, and taking the browser right along with it. This is especially true in Linux. The Flash Video player never crashes, never freezes the browser, it just works. MPlayer plugin? Crashes a LOT. gxine plugin? Starts a new gxine window, which is an insanely STUPID idea, and also crashes a lot. Kaffeine starts a new window, too, but at least doesnt crash. The totem
Just to chuck in my few comments (Score:2)
YouTube simply 'works', I know there's all manner of bugs and flailing codec conversions under the surface, but to a user visiting their site it works perfectly and better than anything else they've seen by a mile. If end-user made video is going to survive (and with bandwidth costs falling and broadband takeup rising, why wouldn't it?), then youtube will remain the gorilla.
As for the questioning of the busine
Why is everyone hatin'? (Score:2)
The world is grey Dvorak... (Score:2)
Yeah, all the other video services are flawed, there are no flaws in youtube...
Re:Hey, everyone! I'm John Dvorak! (Score:1)
I think you mean pseudo, not sudo (Score:1)
Re:I think you mean pseudo, not sudo (Score:1)
Re:I think you mean pseudo, not sudo (Score:2)
I thought sudo was just a shell for running pseudocode. Damn now I will have to start doing it in my head again.
Re:I think you mean pseudo, not sudo (Score:1)
Really? I thought it was pseudo that was the shell for running sudo-code?
Oh dear, I need my dried frog pills. Quick!!!
Here you go... (Score:2)
Your Perspective Is Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, who cares?
Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (Score:1)
Some people are sensitive to Flash, and no these are not the Flash software creators or users like you, but the users of x86-64 processor machines who run a 64-bit Unix-based OS and a 64-bit default Firefox browser which does not run Flash, who have to jump through hoops to make Flash run if at all (and not those wimps who are so desperate to see flash that they run a 32-bit OS on their 64-bit system). The AC is right, why bother ? You can live in your comfortable 32-bit world for a
Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (Score:2)
I was just rebutting the sentiment that many "power-users" have that the world should somehow always accomodate their whims even if their whims aren't those of 99% of people and are almost completely irrelevant given the context. I don't think I can think of a reason why YouTube not supporting people who don't wan
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:Your Perspective Is Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Again, my reply was "If you don't want to install Flash, fine." That's your choice. So this whole argument is built on a straw man - basically framing the argument as if I said that you shouldn't be refusing and that you should download Flash to download YouTube videos. All I said was YouTube doesn't have to cater to you personally.
The word "coerce" has a connotation of forcing someone into an unfair agreement. More weakly, it has the connotation of compelling someone to enter into an agreement. In that sense all agreements are coercions. If YouTube forced you to download an open source, free player to enjoy its content, that would be a coercion too.
Users are being "coerced" in the sense that they are being offered something by YouTube - namely free content - at the same time as being compelled to agree to download the free Flash player to enjoy this content. The Flash player runs on all three major operating systems - Linux, Mac, and Windows. Are you unhappy about this "coercion?" Who is losing anything in that transaction, besides the people whose choice it is not to install Flash? It's not really YouTube's failing if they would rather guarantee cross-browser compatibility by choosing a standard interface that is guaranteed to play inside 99% of browsers, stably, and well, and by choosing how their content is delivered - that is, via a reliable, quick, cross-platform, easy-to-use streaming Flash application. That would be one of the great draws of YouTube, after all. Its flash player.
You have to decide what you're arguing against. Are you suggesting that YouTube should switch away from Flash to accomodate your decision not to use Flash? Fine, then you also have to convince the 99% of people who are willing to download Flash that using Flash is not good for them. If you are just saying that you refuse to install Flash, good for you. It's not YouTube's responsibility to accomodate you.
Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (Score:2)
CONGRATULATIONS!!!
I am Dr. Huggins T. Boddingswhether, The Rodham-Clinton-Gore Professor of Internet Debate at Phoenix Online University. I'm here to tell you that in my years (4) of deep research into the topic of Internet Debate I've yet to see an actual argument won on any topic in any forum in the world.
Until today.
You sir, have taken Internet Debating...nay, HUMAN HISTORY to a new level by succinctly following up your argument with "end of debate". This revolutionary phrase-surely to be on t
Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (Score:1)
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:2)
If you are worried about flash ads just use adblock in firefox and you get the positive aspects
of flash such as youtube, without the negatives.
Beyond that if you refuse to use flash you can't really whine about inability to access content.
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:2, Interesting)
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:I have a different perspective... (Score:2)
Otherwise where do you get off equating Free software with communisism?
Where'd he do that? All I saw was him ranting about the 'everything should be free' crowd which, frankly, needs to die in a fire. Slagging on someone for trying to sell or charge for a service definitely smells of communism.
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:2)
carry on then. I assume your car is completly open as is your mothers basement? and the streets you walk on? Otherwise how do you know there isn't a bomb in there someplace?
Huh? I dont know what kind of car you drive, but yes.. I am able to pop the hood and see exactly how my car works. And, if I see something that looks buggy (or could be done better), I can replace/change it myself. If I was going to buy a car and the engine bay was filled with epoxy to stop me poking around, then I wouldn't buy it.
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:2, Troll)
Replace "flash" with "Microsoft Word" and I think you'll understand some people's sentiments... having done some Flash work, there are some benifits to it, but as with any proprietary technology, some downsides as well, especially when things become entirely dependent on it.
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:2)
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:2)
I feel that I can say with confidence that you are not YouTube's target audience.
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:2)
1. I refuse to install flash
2. I can't see any of their vids
3. I don't want to see any of their vids
As for 1, you can grab the videos independently of the flash software.
http://www.dubayou.com/mytube/?u=about:blank [dubayou.com]
I "imagine" someone can build a handy dandy mozilla plugin and pipe the video to your handy dandy player. That would be mega useful.
As for 2, see 1.
As for 3, it's your loss. While there is a ton of crap on you tube, there is also a ton of stuff including Anime Fan subs, funny
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:1)
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:2)
Re:I have a different perspective... (Score:2)