Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dvorak Adores YouTube

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the and-someday-we'll-have-a-real-business-model dept.

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.""

cancel ×

193 comments

Uh oh (5, Funny)

ereshiere (945922) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895757)

Now that YouTube has Dvorak's endorsement, how long until it collapses?

Re:Uh oh (3, Interesting)

Grant29 (701796) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895904)

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895968)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895977)

Sure he's got some crazy ideas and predictions, but sometimes he's really on the mark.

Well, yes. And the same is famously true of all stopped clocks...

Hi John! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895985)

How long have you been calling yourself 'Grant29'?

Re:Uh oh (1)

July 21, 2006 (968634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895993)

Yes, Dvorak is really that bad. He is a pompous and arrogant jerk.

Re:Uh oh (4, Insightful)

mblase (200735) | more than 7 years ago | (#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 (1)

HotBlackDessiato (842220) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896024)

...Even if he's off a bit sometimes
Sometimes? Sometimes? Are you sure that's the word you want to ascribe? People with worse judgement than Dvorak have been summarily ignored for the rest of their life. Why he hasn't yet is a peculiar lag....intrinsic to his place of work(and a whole subject in to itself)

Re:Uh oh (1)

HotBlackDessiato (842220) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896043)

People with worse judgement
Obviously I didn't proofread my own post. Should read 'better judgement'. That's right, I just took responsibilty and corrected my own mistake. Read into that as much as possible please.

Re:Uh oh (1)

Baloo Ursidae (29355) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896041)

...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.

Re:Uh oh (1)

Buffer490 (994930) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896055)

Who is Dvorak? He is referenced on /. every time he farts, and I can't quite understand the hysteria, I'm afraid.

Ok. He's a columnist. Erh, enough of them around. Right? He "understands IT". Eeeerh, the stories of him referenced in this forum begs to differ. He make wild claims of "up beat" themes, but really - doesn't bring anything new to the table other than an - coloured - opinion? Hey, I wan't that job!

Just - please - shed some light on why I have to read through 4+ articles/references of him every month through /. - I have a grandmother with the same amount of insight which I can too inherit from if I'm lucky... It just seems like time more well spent...

If you tell me he's the Luke Skywalker of programming, I have to - of course - reevaluate him against my grandmother ;-)

Re:Uh oh (1)

HotBlackDessiato (842220) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896080)

The internet's "star figure" system is broken.

Re:Uh oh (1)

Hyperx_Man (936387) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896204)

I think Dvorak is very good. He may not be good at predicting technology, but he knows how to use the media to get himself very well known. His controversies are such that they attract a vertical of media outlets, from the Wall Street Journal to the lowly local paper in Bum F*ck Egypt.

Shocking revelations (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#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?

Re:Shocking revelations (1)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895914)

Oh mod points, please give me mod points ....

Rich.

++++1 funny

Re:Shocking revelations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895928)

You are all complete fucking idiots.

Two ways to look at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895765)

Either the traffic isn't all that expensive, then why doesn't he just host the files himself.
Or the traffic really costs YouTube, then I doubt that he would pay as much for their service as they would require in the long run.

Yes, of course people should take advantage of the functionality while it's there and doesn't come with too many strings attached, but don't bet YOUR business model on it.

Hey, everyone! I'm John Dvorak! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895772)

Here is sudo code for my articles:

for i; i obvious_drivel[i]

Re:Hey, everyone! I'm John Dvorak! (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895791)

hmmm... Something was stripped out of that post. Not much though, because there's not much substance in Dvorak's articles.

I think you mean pseudo, not sudo (1)

unterderbrucke (628741) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895798)

Silly American schools. :o

Re:I think you mean pseudo, not sudo (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895830)

Hey, I'm ovbiously out of it right now. Yes, when I hear psuedo, I think sudo. It has nothing to do with phonetics, I just use sudo a hundred times a day and pseudo once a month.

Re:I think you mean pseudo, not sudo (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895850)

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 (1)

19061969 (939279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895981)

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... (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896028)

DRIEDFRORGP1/4LLS

Dvorak's Right (5, Insightful)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895779)

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 (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895947)

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 (1)

eMbry00s (952989) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896181)

YouTube does have fullscreen capability. The encoding, though, is still as bad as before, so you're just enlarging pixels. I wouldn't pay for better encoding, either, because I don't need it - but I'm certain a lot of others would.

Re:Dvorak's Right (1)

HotBlackDessiato (842220) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896053)

I think that Dvoraks' right on this one.
While it's logically feasible he's right, it should at least cause some caution for YouTube investors that he believes in their venture.

Re:Dvorak's Right (1)

iwsnet (946715) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896112)

I bet Google buys out Youtube, or at least puts in a big investment in the company.

Oh no (3, Funny)

77Punker (673758) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.. (4, Funny)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895787)

...but for the life of me, I have no idea why.

oh great (2, Funny)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895792)

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?

Ask Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895796)

If I need to upload porn, does anyone know a good site other than Youtube where it is against policy?

Re:Ask Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895966)

I can't vouch for speed/latency but just search for "free porn hosting" it's a given you'll get many hits. If you're complaining about about the speed then pay for the service!

E

I have a different perspective... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895797)

  1. youtube uses flash
  2. I refuse to install flash
  3. I can't see any of their vids
  4. I don't want to see any of their vids


Why would I upload video to a site like youtube?

Your Perspective Is Stupid (3, Interesting)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895805)

Don't take it personally. If you don't want to install Flash, fine. Most people have no problem with it. And as far as I know, YouTube is catering to most people, not you.

Seriously, who cares?

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895820)

I run FreeBSD you insensitive clod!

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (1)

middlemen (765373) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895872)

Seriously, who cares?

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 couple more years pal, then all processors will be 64-bit and you will not find new 32-bit x86 machines anymore on the market.

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (1)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895897)

The AC said he refuses to install Flash, not that he can't or that it's hard to install Flash. By the time all processors are 64-bit I assume that a 64-bit version of Flash will have been released.

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 want to use Flash is somehow morally wrong. They're giving you something practically for free - you can meet them half-way if you want to enjoy the benefits.

You might as well say - I refuse to connect to the Internet, YouTube only distributes video over the Internet, why should I upload videos to YouTube?

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895939)

You might as well say - I refuse to connect to the Internet, YouTube only distributes video over the Internet, why should I upload videos to YouTube?

No, you might as well say to John Dvorak (in the context of the article) that YouTube relies on a technology that growing numbers of people refuse to install.

Why do people start ranting like this when someone vocally opposes being coerced by content providers into using a proprietry plugin. No flash for me, No DRM for me, my choice: end of debate.

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (3, Insightful)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895975)

You're not being coerced into anything. Growing numbers of people install Flash. A few people don't install the *free* Flash player because they have some superior view of themselves and refuse being locked in by *free* content providers who don't even have advertising revenue into a "DRM'd" "proprietary" - oh yeah - *free* software player.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15896060)

The OP never made any of these points, you just read the refuse part and began assaulting some preconcieved mental image you have of people who refuse to install flash. (S)he even went so far as to say "I don't want to see any of their vids".

Then you start getting all excited about my use of the word 'coerced'. As I understand it, youtube are coercing their users into using flash. Flash is just used as a wrapper around a standard video container format which plays fine in a standard media player. How is that not coercion on the part of Youtube when somebody without flash installed is sent a link to a youtube video by a friend or relative?

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (3, Informative)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896152)

To crystallize: the response that I made to *your* comment was arguing against *you*, and as far as I know you are not the top poster. Refer to my original reply, the one marked "Your Perspective is Stupid." Moreover, the top poster seemed to imply an entailment between bullet 3. and 4. meaning he can't watch YouTube videos, so therefore he doesn't want to, and then followed it up by saying "Why should I upload videos to YouTube?" as if it was YouTube's duty to accomodate his decision to not install Flash or convince him to use YouTube. The answer seemed self-evident: you shouldn't upload videos to YouTube if you don't want to.

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 (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895992)

Dear Sir:

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 the lips and fingertips of every persnickety angry "Netizen" as they dryly close their arguments of Star Trek, Scientology, and Operating Systems with a thick fingered prod and a wheeze of breath to paraphrase your pithy turn- this phrase will usher in a new era of Internet Debate where arguments can be WON! Don't you see? Don't you see my good man! We can finally have answers!

Kirk vs. Picard
Linux vs. Windows
Jesus vs. Buddah

Its all here, all here! I reel from the possibilities, and bow to your incredible wisdom.

Humbly Yours,

Dr. Huggins T. Boddingswhether

p.s. Enclosed is a certificate of "Noteworthy Achievement" Please use at your discretion.

p.p.s. FAG

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (1)

mikolas (223480) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895895)

I want to install Flash, but it is not available for 64-bit Linux.

Re:Your Perspective Is Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895916)

Seriously, who cares?

Not me, I'll stop using the web before I install flash. By all means, keep those non-web sites with embeded proprietry technology comming.

Re:I have a different perspective... (1)

EGSonikku (519478) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895817)

Any particular reason for #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... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895835)

Because Flash is non-Free software, perhaps? That's why I don't use it.

Re:I have a different perspective... (0, Flamebait)

EGSonikku (519478) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895849)

Oh, you're one of those people ....

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?

Using free software is good and should be encouraged but don't not use somthing just because it doesn't fit into your commie world view.

Re:I have a different perspective... (1)

Shut the fuck up! (572058) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895860)

I'm wondering what "Mr I don't use any software that is not capital F Free" does for a living...

Re:I have a different perspective... (1, Troll)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895877)

Beyond that if you refuse to use flash you can't really whine about inability to access content.


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... (1)

HillaryWBush (882804) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895921)

I'd really like YouTube to cache a streaming QuickTime version and give you the option to receive it that way. The only insurmountable reason to use Flash is that it's harder to save the file locally, which is probably the last thing they want, being content couriers.

Re:I have a different perspective... (0, Troll)

Frank Cassano (994527) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895818)

Look imbecile, no one gives a shit about assholes who refuse to install flash. I bet you hate javascript too. Let me give you some advice: pull your pin-sized head out of your ass and join the modern world.

Re:I have a different perspective... (1)

barfooz (936184) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895852)

A little ad-hominem there? Flash and JavaScript are by and large used to push ads. I agree with his sentiment.

Re:I have a different perspective... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895859)

Who pulled your cord fuck-tag? Did anything you said add to the discussion in a worthwhile way?

Look imbecile, no one gives a shit about assholes who refuse to install flash. I bet you hate javascript too. Let me give you some advice: pull your pin-sized head out of your ass and join the modern world.
A modern world where I have to watch advertising on my computer? A modern world that removes end user control over web content? You appear to be confusing the web with TV which was 'officially' invented in 1926. Modern world indeed!

Re:I have a different perspective... (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895926)

A modern world where you're not going to use youtube, and none of us care one bit if you don't.

Re:I have a different perspective... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895980)

A modern world where you're not going to use youtube, and none of us care one bit if you don't.

Do you often make the effort to post messages in online forums when you don't care one bit about something? Is this really the modern world?

Re:I have a different perspective... (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896059)

I don't care if you use youtube or not. However, mocking you is great fun.

Re:I have a different perspective... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15896083)

Is mocking people for fun part of the modern world?

Re:I have a different perspective... (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895930)

Some of the videos have links to actual video files. I tend to use them instead of Flash because Flash is quite slow on my computer, but mplayer is not.

Re:I have a different perspective... (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896001)

Why would I upload video to a site like youtube?

I feel that I can say with confidence that you are not YouTube's target audience.

Re:I have a different perspective... (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896070)

# youtube uses flash
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 television commericals, and music videos. It's highly compressed, but if you can't find something anywhere else, you take what you can get.

Oh Dvorak! (5, Informative)

Jboost (960475) | more than 7 years ago | (#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! (2, Insightful)

sjwest (948274) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895864)

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 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.

And that's not all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895803)

That's not the only "Tube" Dvorak endorses using... He's also a big fan of Tube Steak!

Dvorak on Slashdot (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Meh. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895822)

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

Next thing you know... (5, Funny)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895826)

Stevens will be talking about how the internet is not a dumptruck, but a series of YouTubes.

Re:Next thing you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895885)

Noo, quiet you! I've had enough of these on Digg. :-(

Re:Next thing you know... (2, Funny)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895906)

The horse came back alive, so I had to beat it to death again.

Well,... (2, Insightful)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895836)

I dont recall having said I adore Dvorak.

Why Slashdot.. why? (2, Insightful)

Locke355 (692507) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895843)

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 (5, Insightful)

shawnmchorse (442605) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895844)

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.

Re:Worrying warranted (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895997)

> . 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.

Does it matter? Clearly they can't be expected to check every file manually, and I believe that the US DMCA act makes the host not accountable until they're told about possible infringement, at which point they can simply pull the video - job done.

Re:Worrying warranted (1)

lazzaro (29860) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896058)

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.

Re:Worrying warranted (1)

mpcooke3 (306161) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896107)

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 (4, Insightful)

British (51765) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896114)

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.

blip.tv (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895846)

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 (5, Funny)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895851)

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. (2, Interesting)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895901)

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?

I don't like youtube that much (1, Insightful)

erichschubert (96206) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895910)

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.

Re:I don't like youtube that much (1)

funfail (970288) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896022)

Are you serious? Try clicking the rightmost icon at the bottom...

Re:I don't like youtube that much (1)

Joel from Sydney (828208) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896036)

I've got a 1600x1200 screen, and the videos are pretty small. I havn't found a way to zoom them.

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 (1)

Neoncow (802085) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896129)

How is google video harder to use? I like the the fact that you can double click on a google video and it maximizes to fill your screen. I also like the way you can pause the video by pressing spacebar. Google videos scanning capability seems to be more granular as well.

(I don't know about embedding, but it seems youtube has the market there)

Online-only (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895912)

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>

Simple Rule (0, Troll)

Lulu of the Lotus-Ea (3441) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895925)

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! (4, Informative)

jesterzog (189797) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895934)

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.

Re:Give Dvorak articles a category, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895951)

Cool! What should we use for the icon?

alternatives flawed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895948)

Seems like our Mr. Dvorak didn't look hard enough. There are several new sites similar to YouTube with no nasty advertising, with quotas but no downsampling of clips, and some of them use convenient MPEG links with no embedded crap.

FUCK HIM (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895957)

Fuck Dvorak! Honestly! I'm not trolling but who cares?
It seems as if Dvorak thinks he has some sort of say when
it comes to something and voices it online. Mostly its just
useless rants about the industry or the problems it faces
and he thinks he is Yoda because he always has the solution.

Perhaps I am just bitter because not everyone knows my last name.
Or perhaps Dvorak is bitter because he isn't as cool as CowboyNeal.

Free bandwidth! (2, Insightful)

pkulak (815640) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895958)

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...

Where's the money (2, Informative)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895970)

They're reportedly losing over $1M a month now due to increasing bandwidth needs. I seriously doubt that AdSense is going to work for them. They are going to need to put in some good, quick advertisements into their videos and they are going to need to start hiring a small army of people to watch video submissions and check for copyright violations.

To put it euphemistically, they have their work cut out for them.

Most video on YouTube isn't exactly original (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896003)

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.

Slashdot's done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15896032)

Even tho the users have voiced a very serious opinion against Dorkvorak they still continue to post anything he puts online. Is slashdot's management ever going to listen to it's users? I know that I no longer feel the need to post anything serious around here since slashdot has become such a joke.

Two things YouTube could make money on. (2, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896079)

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.

Re:Two things YouTube could make money on. (2, Interesting)

OverflowingBitBucket (464177) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896178)

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, yes. Micropayments to uploaders... can't see it happening. Maybe there is a clever way to do it, I'm just not sure what it is.

why? (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896091)

Why do we care what Devorak thinks?

Just because he has a keyboard style named after him why does this make his thoughts worthy of Slashdotting?

Re:why? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15896155)

You're thinking of August Dvorak [wikipedia.org] - same namesake, wrong person.

What does Dvorak love? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15896203)

He probably likes AOL, too.

adcritic (1)

smartin (942) | more than 7 years ago | (#15896220)

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 with the understanding that you made it, and still own it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...