Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Dvorak Adores YouTube 193

Posted by Hemos from the and-someday-we'll-have-a-real-business-model dept.
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.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dvorak Adores YouTube More

Dvorak Adores YouTube

Comments Filter:

  • Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)

    by ereshiere ( 945922 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @05:49PM (#15895757)
    Now that YouTube has Dvorak's endorsement, how long until it collapses?

    • Re:Uh oh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Grant29 ( 701796 ) *
      Is Dvorak really that bad? Sure he's got some crazy ideas and predictions, but sometimes he's really on the mark. Even if he's off a bit sometimes, he does bring up interesting topics and new mindset ways of thinking about current events and trends.
      --
      Top Music Tones: Hourly updates of the top songs and albums [topmusictones.com]

      • Re:Uh oh (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

      • Hi John! (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        How long have you been calling yourself 'Grant29'?

      • Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mblase ( 200735 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @07:06PM (#15896021)
        Is Dvorak really that bad? Sure he's got some crazy ideas and predictions, but sometimes he's really on the mark. Even if he's off a bit sometimes, he does bring up interesting topics and new mindset ways of thinking about current events and trends.

        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)

          by Ruff_ilb ( 769396 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @08:40PM (#15896278) Homepage
          Not quite the same thing... Dvorak isn't libelous or hurtful, for the most part, wheras Coulter almost exclusively is.

          In other words, Dvorak is occasionally useful and mostly harmless, wheras Coulter is occasionally harmles and mostly terrible.

          • Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Interesting)

            by yoder ( 178161 ) * <steve.g.tripp@gmail.com> on Saturday August 12, 2006 @10:09PM (#15896528) Journal
            //"In other words, Dvorak is occasionally useful and mostly harmless, wheras Coulter is occasionally harmles and mostly terrible."

            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.

            • 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.

          • Dvorak is occasionally useful and mostly harmless
            So he's like Earth?
          • "Dvorak isn't libelous or hurtful, for the most part, wheras Coulter almost exclusively is."

            Except, you can't libel public figures, whom Coulter targets.
      • ...he's really on the mark. Even if he's off a bit... Yeah! And a stopped clock is right twice a day. Unless it's a military issue or public transit clock, then only once a day.
      • Sadly, this guy has not been correct on something for near to a decade, except when he is one of the last to be jumping on it.

  • Shocking revelations (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, 2006 @05:51PM (#15895762)
    So, cashflow, profit, or business model really aren't such a big deal, so long as you can get lots of "eyeballs". This is a fascinating and innovative model-- so innovative, in fact, I might be inclined to call it an entire "new economy"! Moreover, there's apparently a new site called "youtube" which is very successful! Further shocking and forward-thinking revelations in John Dvorak's column to come in the following weeks:
    1. "Reality Television" shows will soon be very popular.
    2. George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is sure to be a big hit in the upcoming election.
    3. New company "google dot com" may be poised for success.
    4. Will the Y2K bug be fixed in time?
    5. Islamic terrorists: Might they be up to something?

  • Dvorak's Right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrCrassic ( 994046 ) <<li.ame> <ta> <detacerped>> on Saturday August 12, 2006 @05:55PM (#15895779) Journal
    I think that Dvoraks' right on this one. YouTube will definitely suceed in the long run just like Google has. Almost every internet user loves a simple interface with simple procedures to get things done; YouTube caters to that, so everyone is happy. And it's nice to be able to capture something rare on video and then show off your skills to everyone. However, I don't think that many users of YouTube are very concerned about the business model end of it -- I think that they are enjoying functionality already. Do you really think that the average Joe User thinks about the monthly net profit as he posts a video?

    • Re:Dvorak's Right (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @06:44PM (#15895947) Homepage Journal
      I am enjoying it, but we have to keep in mind they can't live on venture capital forever. Trying to ignore the problem doesn't mean it's not there. Remember, people ignored the problem of no business model in the 90's to their own detriment, and the gravy train died and now I see a resurgence of the same attitude that brought about the dot-bomb.

      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)

        by Mongoose Disciple ( 722373 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @08:58PM (#15896330)
        At least Google didn't have such high per-user bandwidth and Flash licencing expenses.

        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.

    • I discovered YouTube, browsed through some music videos, and came up with this blog post. [blogspot.com]

      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)

    by 77Punker ( 673758 ) <(ude.tniophgih) (ta) (40rcneps)> on Saturday August 12, 2006 @05:56PM (#15895785)
    Now he's doing videos? Nobody wants to see his ugly face. It's bad enough that his articles end up here.

  • ..and Slashdot Love Dvorak.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @05:56PM (#15895787) Journal
    ...but for the life of me, I have no idea why.

  • oh great (Score:3, Funny)

    by mgabrys_sf ( 951552 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @05:57PM (#15895792) Journal
    Now they're totally fucking dead. Either him - or getting on the cover of Wired seems to be the worst omens you can get. Although being on the cover of Businessweek isn't great either. EH KEVIN?

  • Oh Dvorak! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jboost ( 960475 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @06:00PM (#15895800)
    Geez, who let Dvorak out of his cage?

    Some sites require endless forms to fill out. Others, such as copycat newcomer Metacafe which cannot even transcode the ubiquitous MOV file, are useless for personal digital cam vids.
    Other sites have weird limitations or do not provide embedding code. It's one thing or another.
    One of the community video sites for "citizen journalists" wants the hapless user to transcode the video themselves before uploading it. Most people don't have a clue how to do that. Even Google can't get it right.
    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)

      by sjwest ( 948274 )
      Sharing video sucks - even Borland featured on /. this week - hosted theres off there web site.

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, 2006 @06:04PM (#15895815)
    I honestly think Slashdot should stop echoing everything Dvorak says. If this is "news for nerds; stuff that matters", I think we would expect a good technical analysis from the usability/accesibility/quality/price point of view of several online video hosting services, and a conclusion, maybe stating that YouTube is the best in the field. But, honestly, this guy is nobody and everything he writes is linked here. Even if he was a very good journalist, this wouldn't happen. Only from time to time we'd get a link to something relevant. If people are very interested in what Dvorak says, they will bookmark him. But what he writes is not worth so many links here.

    My two cents.
    • He's hardly a nobody [wikipedia.org]. And 95% of the time, the headline-grabbing drivel that he writes is met with the response it deserves by the Slashdot community. I suspect links to his articles continue to be posted to Slashdot because (a) controversy is entertaining, and (b) it gives the community an outlet for flaming etc. so they can keep the quality of responses to real articles higher.

      Remember: everyone on this Earth serves a purpose, even if it is merely to serve as a warning to other.

  • Meh. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A) who cares?
    B) Google Video is better anyway. Youtube is just...... smells funny.

  • Next thing you know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by monoqlith ( 610041 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @06:07PM (#15895826)
    Stevens will be talking about how the internet is not a dumptruck, but a series of YouTubes.

  • Well,... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Duhavid ( 677874 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @06:10PM (#15895836)
    I dont recall having said I adore Dvorak.

  • Why Slashdot.. why? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Locke355 ( 692507 )
    Why does Dvorak articles make it to the front page? His articles are obviously not 'stuff that matters' to anyone on this site. Is it to gain more traffic through "Dvorak is an idiot" posts?

  • Worrying warranted (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shawnmchorse ( 442605 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @06:14PM (#15895844) Homepage
    YouTube is nice, no doubt about it, but it'll have to change radically to survive in the long term and I really don't see any way around that.

    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 .com bubble already and we all know exactly where this is heading. The most we can do is enjoy the ride for now, while it's still operating.
    • The screen that shows at the end of a youtube video now points to a few other videos you'd might like. It looks like some of these are marked "commercial", and thus I assume someone paid for the link to be placed in the video. I could see how this could make money.
    • 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.

      They'll run adverts, and it will be very profitable.

      And Google knows it.

    • Re:Worrying warranted (Score:5, Insightful)

      by British ( 51765 ) <british1500@gmail.com> on Saturday August 12, 2006 @07:40PM (#15896114) Homepage Journal
      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.

      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.
    • If companies were serious about copyright, websites like AnimeMusicVideos.org [animemusicvideos.org] would have been dead years ago. Most companies don't seem to give a crap, and even fewer care if someone takes a short clip of their content. See the thousands upon thousands of Family Guy clips on YouTube, for example.
      • Short clips can be covered under Fair Use. Sometimes. They key here is that these companies are not being injured by the use, and it actually results in higher sales of their products (short clips of Family Guy = more DVD sales + more TV viewers).

        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.

  • blip.tv (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    all the alternatives are bad and flawed??? You must be kidding or have never heard of blip.tv. they are a great service and are helpful beyond belief. heck... even cnn uses them for video transcoding and uploading.

  • Thanks, John (Score:5, Funny)

    by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Saturday August 12, 2006 @06:17PM (#15895851) Homepage Journal

    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)

    by FlyByPC ( 841016 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @06:30PM (#15895901) Homepage
    Yeah, there's a lot of noise out there -- but if you pick through it, there are some cool videos, like this one [youtube.com] where a 500KV switch generates a free-air Jacob's Ladder, or this one [youtube.com] showing some cool effects of high-power acoustics on a semiliquid cornstarch mix.

    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?

    • there are some cool videos, like this one where a 500KV switch generates a free-air Jacob's Ladder, or this one showing some cool effects of high-power acoustics on a semiliquid cornstarch mix.

      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.

    • A very interesting video
  • I've got a 1600x1200 screen, and the videos are pretty small. I havn't found a way to zoom them.
    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.
  • My only beef is that you have to be online to watch the videos. For a month, I had access to a computer at work with no sound, and a computer at home with no internet.

    Nevertheless, I love spending hours watching the Daily Show and Colbert Report clips!

    - RG>
  • No g*d d*mn Dvorak! Seriously, can't we just follow a simple rule to make Slashdot a little bit better. Just don't feed the troll!

  • Give Dvorak articles a category, please! (Score:5, Informative)

    by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @06:40PM (#15895934) Journal

    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)

    by pkulak ( 815640 )
    They're giving away huge amounts of bandwidth for free. If I stood out in the street and started handing out 20-dollar bills, there would probably be a line 4 blocks long in half an hour. I would have the most popular "business" in town! The growth would be exceptional! I'll worry about how to make money on it later...

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @06:52PM (#15895970)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • 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)

    by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker@@@gmail...com> on Saturday August 12, 2006 @07:25PM (#15896079) Journal
    Ok there are two things YouTube could really make some money one. The ability to pay to post clips longer than their current minimum (think its 15 minutes??). And the ability to tip a creator when you watch a video you like. No I'm not talking about paying for the right to watch a clip, if thats what you need put it on google video. I'm talking about thinking something is funny and dropping the guy a dime, or a fiver.
      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.
    • I'm talking about thinking something is funny and dropping the guy a dime, or a fiver.

      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
  • I'm not exactly sure of the name but there used to be a site called adcritic that hosted commercials. Now I know that everybody is proprietary about their stuff, but isn't the purpose of a commercial to get itself infront of as many eyeballs as possible? Youtube certainly has problems with copyright issues, but I have to wonder, does maintaining some sort of ownership for your work always have to mean scraping a few pennies from everyone that views it? Or is is possible to let people enjoy what you''ve done
  • What the hell do I do now? I agree with Dvorak!!! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

  • Functionality? What functionality? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Saturday August 12, 2006 @09:04PM (#15896346) Homepage Journal
    "MarketWatch columnist John C. Dvorak tells the public to stop fretting about YouTube's business model and just start enjoying the functionality"

    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!
    • Here's to you Mr. I'm-going-to-wine-because-i'm-in-the-vast-minority man:
      Pops [imageshack.us]
    • The problem is:
      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
  • First off - I'm convinced YouTube will 'make it' (myspace won't, which I'll leave for another day).

    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 do so many people dislike this guy? I don't really know who he is aside from being the keyboard guy.. Based on this article, I liked what he had to say.. It's true.. YouTube got it right, and figuring out a business around it will come in time. So long ago Napster got something right, it made it easy to do something that there was a huge demand for. It wasn't so much that people just wanted free music. They wanted easy access to music. Later on, Apple figured out how to capitalize on it by giving peo
  • ...funny how when he talks about things they're always absolutes. This is crap, that is crap, this is good, that is crap. LOL. He sure loves the sound of his own typing... What's he really done worth making him the oracle he seems to think he is.

    Yeah, all the other video services are flawed, there are no flaws in youtube...

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close