Beta
×

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!

Twitter's Vine App Ready To Bomb Internet With GIF-Like Videos

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the six-seconds-you-won't-get-back dept.

Twitter 117

Nerval's Lobster writes "Twitter has rolled out Vine, a free app for iOS devices that allows users to shoot and post short videos. Twitter's strategic focus on brevity—the company has long resisted calls to lengthen Tweets beyond the current 140-character limit—extends to Vine videos, which can only be six seconds in length. 'Posts on Vine are about abbreviation — the shortened form of something larger,' Dom Hoffman, Vine's co-founder and general manager, wrote in a blog posting. 'They're little windows into the people, settings, ideas and objects that make up your life.' It's easy to see the Vine acquisition as part of Twitter's larger push into multimedia. The company launched a muscled-up photo service Dec. 10, complete with Instagram-style filters and editing tools. That photo launch came on the heels of an escalating battle with Instagram, the Facebook subsidiary, which decided to disable photo integration with Twitter; that same month, Yahoo also decided to jump into the fray with a new Flickr app for iPhone, complete with special filters and the ability to post images to various social networks."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

bomb the internet? (4, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#42686163)

No. It will bomb Twitter. Those of us who don't use twitter will never see or worry about these 6 second clips.

Re:bomb the internet? (0)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about 2 years ago | (#42686251)

On Twitter I can actually interact with celebrities directly, on Facebook I can consume what their handlers put online. Huge difference. Twitter is like IRC for the world, dive in, read and chat, go about your day. - HEX

Re:bomb the internet? (5, Funny)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#42686287)

On Twitter I can actually interact with celebrities directly...

Ok, why?

Re: bomb the internet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686377)

Why? Because the celebrity's intern is authorized to tweet on his owner's behalf.

"There's a Brand New Dance, Spread Far and Wide" (3, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42687113)

"C'mon, and show it/Let's Do the Goatse!
It's better than Sext/Girl, Do the Goatse!
I see it coming down the Vine/Let's Do the Goatse!"

Re:bomb the internet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42687149)

Simon Pegg called me a dolt on twitter. It was awesome.

Re:bomb the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42687215)

On Twitter I can actually interact with celebrities directly...
Ok, why?

Because small people with insignificant lives need to live vicariously through Celebrity in order to find fulfillment. Twitter offers them the extra level of illusion of a more intimate relationship.

As for the video service, it's probably going to fail pretty hard. People can get used to posting within a word limit, but most idiots with a cell phone take a good 10 seconds just to get the camera pointed at what they're trying to film. Just look at youtube for examples, 6 seconds is far too short... they'll need at least 30 seconds to a full minute to make it work.

Re:bomb the internet? (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about a year ago | (#42687563)

Some of us don't just use Twitter to stalk celebrities. I personally use it for political commentary, getting blog hits (I don't run ads, so no, not for revenue), & getting news before news websites get it.

It's probably the most powerful medium for journalists & bloggers.

That being said, I don't see Vine as adding anything to Twitter, nor do I see it being taken up in a hurry. I'll give it a go, but I don't think I'll rush out & "Vine" everything I see.

Re:bomb the internet? (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about a year ago | (#42687729)

Interesting that people are assuming that I'm only using it to stalk celebrities; most of my use is free form discussion, latest news, and of course talking with other creative folks both famous and not so famous. Not directed at you some of the ACs: Twitter isn't supposed to be continuously read, of course no one is going to read all the tweets that mention them, and people shouldn't be trying to read every tweet by their favorite celebrities. You look at the stream as it goes by, you don't obsess over it. - HEX

Re:bomb the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42690939)

Maybe that is because you said...

"On Twitter I can actually interact with celebrities directly, on Facebook I can consume what their handlers put online. Huge difference. Twitter is like IRC for the world, dive in, read and chat, go about your day. - HEX" ...and you said it as a total non sequitur to the post you replied to, so it seems to the reader (and to any psych majors) that you find interacting with celebrities to be very important.

Re:bomb the internet? (1)

Prokur (2445102) | about a year ago | (#42689249)

On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog

Re:bomb the internet? (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | about 2 years ago | (#42686325)

What? No. A large number of the high-profile celebrity twitter accounts are run by a social media manager, same as on facebook.

Re:bomb the internet? (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about 2 years ago | (#42686485)

You folks are thinking of the wrong celebrities, I'm talking about the real people like Kevin Smith (@thatKevinSmith), Bruce Campbell (@GroovyBruce), William Shatner (@WilliamShatner), Warren Ellis (@warrenellis), and many more who tweet and respond themselves. I guess I just don't follow the kind of people who don't do their own Twitter. - HEX

Re:bomb the internet? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42687235)

Well, if your a worthless piece of shit that receives validation because WILLIAM SHATNER or KEVIN SMITH read your finest 140 character, more power to you.

Re:bomb the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42687483)

I wouldn't call him a worthless piece of shit, but he does need the validation to proceed in life. It is how he copes with the rest of the chaos in the world. Just as you, Anonymous Coward, cope by insulting other shadowless figures on an internet forum.

Re:bomb the internet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42687303)

Just because they respond to some tweets personally doesn't mean they even see most of them. I doubt Smith, Campbell, etc. get all that many Tweets, but someone like Shatner would spend every waking moment reading Twitter if he didn't use an intern or some kind of automatic filter to sort them.
I've heard a lot of Celebs mention in interviews that they don't really "read" their Twitter, they just kind of scan the pages of posts every so often and sometimes one post "jumps out" at them and they might respond. But the people who follow them and make claims like yours and the GP are under the illusion that those people are actively hunched over their mobile devices feverishly consuming everything their fans say. Which is probably true for the idiot celebrities like the Kardashians and Snookie who don't actually DO anything worthwhile.

Re:bomb the internet? (5, Funny)

Alien Being (18488) | about a year ago | (#42688081)

Shatner needs 140 characters just for whitespace.

Re:bomb the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686551)

Social media manager? If even that, after all they reminded us it is something like IRC, which we all know came with that age old warning: That beautiful hot and horny naked teenager is probably a 40 year old bored balding fat desk sergeant looking to make an easy bust.

Even if your face-to-face with someone, it is no guarantee you are talking to who you think you are talking to or who might be listening and watching.

oblig (5, Funny)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 2 years ago | (#42686879)

Ah the Internet -- where the men are boys, the women are men, and the teenage girls are FBI agents.

Re:oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42688021)

but what about the little girls? weren't they supposed to be the FBI agents?

Re:bomb the internet? (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about 2 years ago | (#42687309)

If you're chatting up people who are, or are who purport to be, teenage girls, and those teenage girls couldn't fairly, decently or naturally be referred to by others as YOUR peers, then I'm glad the desk sergeant is doing his job.

Also, I read it wrong at first - I actually warmed to the idea of being chatted up online by a Sarge, then I read it again and got the context correct from the bust bit...

Re:bomb the internet? (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 2 years ago | (#42686565)

On Twitter I can actually interact with celebrities directly

What do you mean "interact". Tweeting at a person you don't know is the equivalent of saying (or maybe yelling) something at them as they walk by in a public place. Celebs don't really do the public interactions very well as it is, so why would they interact with something that is far easier to ignore / delete?

with thousands of people talking to them, you're lucky if they notice what you say.

Re:bomb the internet? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42686893)

"On Twitter I can actually interact with celebrities directly"

Has it ever crossed your mind that you could just get a life, instead? WTF does a celebrity have to say that could possibly interest me? I visit Sodahead occasionally. A vast majority of the posts/surveys are mindless drivel about people that I simply don't give a damn about. If a catastrophe took them all out tomorrow, I'd never miss any of them. The headline would catch my eye, and I'd go "Awww, that's a shame." Ten minutes later, I'd forget about them.

Re:bomb the internet? (1, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#42687717)

The fact that you give a fuck about interacting with celebrities is precisely why your opinion doesn't matter.

Re:bomb the internet? (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#42688569)

How do you know that? A good manager is indistinguishable from the real thing, except for never saying anything offensive, legally dubious, or that could be seen as endorsing a product. Something no sensible celebrity would do. The only way I can imagine to know with any degree of reliability that a celebrity account is real and not filtered by their PR agent would be if they said something so monumentally stupid that no PR agency could possibly allow it - and I'm talking 'Blame the jews for ruining the economy' or 'If this law passes, I'm going to haul my gun to Washington and shoot Obama' level of dumb.

6 seconds? (2)

olsmeister (1488789) | about 2 years ago | (#42686175)

I guess you should be able to sext^H^H^H^Hfilm something in that length of time.

Re:6 seconds? (2)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about 2 years ago | (#42687187)

OK, I have to ask... What is ^H^H^H^H? Backspaces?

Re:6 seconds? (4, Informative)

chronokitsune3233 (2170390) | about a year ago | (#42687549)

Indeed. ^H is a shortened form of Ctrl-H (C-H for those Emacs lovers). Since H is the eighth letter of the Latin alphabet, it corresponds to ASCII character code 0x08: the backspace (BS) control code. A horizontal tab was code 0x09, so when you press the tab key or use the "\t" escape in strings in a programming language, you're actually sending that control code. Of course, that's mostly ancient history now for most. Keyboard manufacturers, Assembly programmers and hardware driver creators come to mind as the few who might actually need to know such information...

Unicode++;

Re:6 seconds? (3, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#42688591)

Short version: In certain circumstances, rarely encountered on modern operating systems but once frustratingly common, pressing backspace would not be recognised and instead give you a ^H symbol. Worse, under very specific circumstances the backspace might be recognised by the OS (erasing a character on screen) but passed as ^H to the application - from the user's perspective, all works, but really their typoes and erased sentences are getting recorded as part of whatever document they are writing.

I have encountered it myself only once, when connected via serial terminal with the wrong termtype set. Back when serial terminals were common this was a very easy mistake to make, but serial terminals today are confined only to hardware configuration ports and occasionally access-of-last-resort on servers.

Re:6 seconds? (1)

lurker1997 (2005954) | about a year ago | (#42689561)

It's OK to ask (although you probably could have looked it up) and I understand that younger people might not know this, but it's pretty sad to me that his has been modded up. I think it says something about the way the userbase of slashdot has changed.

Re:6 seconds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42691017)

I submit that your response more clearly demonstrates the change in /.

Well yeah... (1)

cshark (673578) | about 2 years ago | (#42686199)

but instagram is still the name brand that emo kids and hipsters are too good to admit they're using.

You mean, like 5 second films? (3, Informative)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about 2 years ago | (#42686211)

Wow. This is so innovative. I can't believe someone didn't invent it and bring it to the internet before 2008 [5secondfilms.com] ...

Re:You mean, like 5 second films? (1)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#42686461)

I for one smell a hint of YTMND.

Re:You mean, like 5 second films? (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year ago | (#42689507)

I for one smell a hint of YTMND.

At least YTMND knows it's making the Internet worse.

Re:You mean, like 5 second films? (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about 2 years ago | (#42686481)

Apples to Oranges.

5secondfilms is an art form. This new "service" is a dumpster where a bunch of kids will throw their crap that even youtube does not want.

Re:You mean, like 5 second films? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42686915)

"5secondfilms is an art form. This new "service" is a dumpster where a bunch of kids will throw their crap that even youtube and MySpace does not want."

Think that's more accurate?

Re:You mean, like 5 second films? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686677)

Unless, of course, someone comes up with 4 seconds Abs...Then you're in trouble.

Re:You mean, like 5 second films? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686719)

"Dude, get this ... seven. second. films!"

Re:You mean, like 5 second films? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | about a year ago | (#42688467)

So much innovation ...

Whew! (1)

Megane (129182) | about 2 years ago | (#42686233)

Good thing twimg.com is blocked by the filter where I work! The last thing I need to see is pseudo-videos from a bunch of twits.

Re:Whew! (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#42688607)

So what you're saying is you have zero self control and rely in blocking software to stop you from frequenting a site. That is sad.

The Twitter Video Storyboard (2)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#42686235)

Second 1: Learn HTML and CGI
Second 2: Create a service that allows people to post and view super-abbreviated blog posts
Second 3: Buy a video service, integrate with your existing service
Second 4: Limit videos to six seconds
Second 5: ?????
Second 6: Profit!

Re:The Twitter Video Storyboard (0)

usagimaru (2327148) | about 2 years ago | (#42686889)

Second 1: Learn Ruby
Second 2: Create a service that allows people to post and view super-abbreviated blog posts
Second 3: Rewrite service in Scala so it doesn't crash all the time
Second 4: Buy a video service, integrate with your existing service
Second 5: Limit videos to six seconds
Second 6: ?????

FTFY

Re:The Twitter Video Storyboard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42691095)

Seriously? Another person that cannot make the distinction between Ruby, a scripting language and Rails, a framework.

Re:The Twitter Video Storyboard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42688759)

Second 5: Brainwash iPopulation with Marketing Voodoo

I've never understood... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#42686239)

I've never understood the appeal in Twitter or this hype about abbreviated messages, videos, etc.

I mean, 140 characters made sense in an era before widespread smartphones, where the average person only had a phone capable of receiving SMSes and carriers often charged per message.

But its 2013, we've got faster internet connections via mobile networks than what most of us used to have back home ten years ago. With all this added bandwidth you think we'd be overcoming limitations, not adding in more.

Re:I've never understood... (2)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#42686343)

How much time do you have to read a bunch of random posts by your friends/celebrities/companies? Most people have a lot of things competing for their attention, personally and professionally. If the posts are limited in size so you can very quickly scan them all, you're more likely to read them. And the authors of the posts are more likely to make every byte count. Instead of rambling on, they're more likely to reconsider what they actually need to say to get their point across. They distill their messages.

How often does someone send you a link to a video expecting you're going to watch 6 minutes to get 6 seconds of information from somewhere in the middle of it? After about 10 seconds, I close the window and more on to the next thing that needs my attention. If the author is limited to six seconds of video, they're going to make every second count, and you're more likely to actually watch it.

Re:I've never understood... (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#42686391)

Except that Twitter is almost never just 140 characters. Rather, it is 10 words of description and then a shortened URL to who-knows-what. There's very little meaningful information that can be conveyed via video in 6 seconds.

Re: I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686495)

I can say "Fuck You!" 14 times in six seconds. That should be enough to get my point across.

Re: I've never understood... (1)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#42686705)

I can say "Fuck You!" 14 times in six seconds. That should be enough to get my point across.

Ah, but you could say it 17.5 times textually in a tweet, which is far more efficient. Oddly enough, I still don't get your point. Repeating yourself does not make it clearer. Are you upset at the poster, Twitter, Vine, or yourself?

Re: I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42687125)

140 characters is enough for me to correct your grammar (more clear, not clearer) and still say it 4 times

Re: I've never understood... (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about 2 years ago | (#42687353)

140 characters is enough for me to correct your grammar (more readable, not more clear) and still say it 4 times.

Re:I've never understood... (3, Insightful)

buswolley (591500) | about 2 years ago | (#42686515)

I should start a twitter for intellects, and require > 140 characters to post.

Re:I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686561)

@Darkness404 Lulz #SpeakingTruth! #Twitter is #NewTechnology for the #YouthCulture and #FriendWhores #GotProof is at bitly.com/WwAoHG

Re:I've never understood... (1)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#42686657)

Except that Twitter is almost never just 140 characters. Rather, it is 10 words of description and then a shortened URL to who-knows-what.

That's just people thinking they're outsmarting the system by working around it because they're not smart enough to realize why the limit is there. And you're free to decide their shortened URL isn't worth following. I ignore all tweets that contain a shortened URL if they don't adequately describe what they're sending me to. And I ignore all Twitterers (Twitterheads?) who use shortened URLs in every other tweet. People who post or read that stuff deserve what they get -- it's like watching (or appearing on) Jerry Springer. How embarrassing.

There's very little meaningful information that can be conveyed via video in 6 seconds.

Depends on how you parse it. I would say that there's very little information that can be conveyed in four hours of watching C-SPAN. You'll likely get more out of the 140-character-or-less headline about Congress in The New York Times the next day.

Re:I've never understood... (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year ago | (#42688995)

You used more than 140 characters in your post, this detracts from your argument.

Re:I've never understood... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#42687521)

Given that you control who you follow, it's you own fault for following people that post links and not text. Very little content in the twitter feed of people I follow even has links.

Re:I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686785)

I distill my messages alright, I don't use twitter.

Re:I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42687005)

How much time do you have to read a bunch of random posts by your friends/celebrities/companies?

Plenty. See? He's posting on /.

Re:I've never understood... (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 2 years ago | (#42687095)

I agree. 140 characters is just ridiculous. Where would we be if say, Pierre de Fermat, had been similarly limited to express himself?

Re:I've never understood... (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 2 years ago | (#42687195)

I've never understood the appeal in Twitter or this hype about abbreviated messages, videos, etc.

See the relevant xkcd strip [xkcd.com] .

But its 2013, we've got faster internet connections via mobile networks than what most of us used to have back home ten years ago.

Not always, no. You can send an SMS from a hell of a lot more territory than you can get a data connection.

Re:I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42687525)

I've never understood the appeal in Twitter or this hype about abbreviated messages, videos, etc.
  I mean, 140 characters made sense in an era before widespread smartphones, where the average person only had a phone capable of receiving SMSes and carriers often charged per message.
But its 2013, we've got faster internet connections via mobile networks than what most of us used to have back home ten years ago. With all this added bandwidth you think we'd be overcoming limitations, not adding in more.

The appeal is it lets people feel like the mindless drivel they post matters to somebody.
The character limit actually is a good thing, for two reasons. First, they don't really have anything worthwhile to say which requires more. Second, it makes it very easy to quickly scan a large amount of crap and pick out the few semi-worthwhile blurbs.
Think about it kind of like advertising, but on a personal level.
And it actually works well on smartphones, it's not the connection speed which matters but rather the display area. You can fit a single Tweet from a single Twit on the screen.
As for the video length, it's too short because most people waste at least 10 seconds at the start of their video just trying to get the camera properly oriented. But I think the real problem here is that most people seem to have a case of epilepsy or are having some kind of seizure when they're trying to film something. I imagine most of these 6 seconds clips are going to be of the floor, the ceiling, people's pants, feet, the wall, a chair, or a large blur of random motion and a wall of noise for the audio.

Re:I've never understood... (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year ago | (#42688527)

Simple: Twitter has to pay for SMS gateway access to receive tweets from people's phones. They get special bulk rates which would have to be adjusted higher to compensate for the extra bandwidth if they accepted multi-part SMS traffic. To get the cheapest rate they keep the limit to the max length of a single SMS message.

Even in this era of widespread smartphones with high speed cellular data and WiFi connectivity, the SMS functionality is implemented as a kludge on top of the old voice protocol. That implementation can't be upgraded easily due to service requirements for emergency messaging and the like that can't be reliably performed with more modern data transmission.

Re:I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42689029)

Limpdick404 doesn't understand something, start the gothic presses!

Re:I've never understood... (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year ago | (#42689359)

It's a two-way thing, you keep your message short and people will read it. Moreover, people will read them even if you post a lot of messages.

Think of it this way, as a reader: you may have noticed that most blogging services like LiveJournal initially provided a feed that showed every single post, in full, that had been posted by the people you follow (obviously paged, and obviously in date order.) While I rather liked that, it started to get unwieldy when you started to follow a lot of people, and started to see a lot of messages on your feed. Meanwhile, many messages were hidden. Each blog entry, after all, usually had a comments section, and people would write comments that you often wanted to read, but weren't in that feed.

The result was that blogging services started to decline. Some, like Multiply, replaced their UI entirely and prevented anyone from getting hold of that kind of feed, regardless of whether they wanted it or not. Others, like LiveJournal, started to lose readers. Those that rejigged their UIs tended to do so suboptimally too, the new user interfaces for the most part didn't replicate the conversational aspect of seeing blog entries from the people you followed and made it easier to miss things in the noise.

Twitter is a relatively good approach to fixing that. It comes in from the other direction: fix the bloggers, not the reader. People are encouraged to keep their messages short. If someone has something complicated to say, they can always post a headline and a link. If someone has something easy to say that just won't fit in 140 characters, you can always split your message across two or more tweets. Because of the 140 character limit, you can now handle more messages, which means implementation changes that help readers: for example, tweets don't have a comment section, you reply to tweets with more tweets, and those tweets also appear in the timelines of people following you, so they don't miss the conversation.

It's not ideal, but for the most part I think it works.

Gif vs Vine (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | about 2 years ago | (#42686311)

I wonder, is the vine format smaller than gif? Lots of small gifs all around, so no reason they couldnt be placed if devices can view them.
Only problem I can think of, I want to be able to see them on my android phone and laptop and no viewer yet?

Not sure what all the hate is, its like people dont like new tech around here.

Re:Gif vs Vine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686507)

Get back to me when you get sound in your gifs.

Re:Gif vs Vine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686801)

easy enough, here's the real challenge, get back to me when someone gives a shit to look at 6 seconds of your pathetic life

Re:Gif vs Vine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42687265)

How about the 6 seconds when I cum on your mom's face?

GIF vs. AVC (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42687159)

is the vine format smaller than gif?

I'd assume so. MPEG-4 AVC is a much more efficient codec for live-action moving images than GIF animation.

Re:GIF vs. AVC (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#42688599)

At six seconds, you could fit the whole video into one GOP.

GOP in one GOP (0)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42690659)

For that matter, you could fit the (U.S.) Republican Party's whole attention span into one group of pictures.

Re:Gif vs Vine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42691209)

I have got to stop reading this thread. If there is any god, you're nothing but a smoking pair of shoes right now after the righteous lighting just struck you for posting.

  Not liking new tech? It's that people here actually love new tech and this type of Silicon Valley "innovation" is dumbing down IT like a bad scene from Idiocracy.

Wont anyone think of the copywrite infringement!?! (2)

stewsters (1406737) | about 2 years ago | (#42686433)

Wont anyone think of the copywrite infringement!?! Most pirates on YouTube already break films into sections, this wont help the trend. I don't want to watch 1200 segments for a 2 hour movie.

attention span (2)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about 2 years ago | (#42686449)

Makes sense considering the average attention span of their demographic

Re:attention span (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 2 years ago | (#42686815)

to be fair most of their demographic wouldn't know how to count to 140 if it wasnt for twitter

so its really helping society by extending these peoples attention span to 6 seconds

Re:attention span (2)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 2 years ago | (#42686909)

I have a long, detailed reply to this -- hang on

YTMND (2)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 2 years ago | (#42686493)

so it's like YTMND except with less hentai

Re:YTMND (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42687925)

Not right now you don't!

Just Enough Time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686535)

Just enough time to scroll through 140 characters of text!

Who'll be the first to make the Twitter -> Vine -> Twitter conversion apps? I'm sure that guy will get too much money from such an app.

captcha: unworthy. It seems it won't be me.

Just long enough for an "Ow My Balls!" segment... (4, Funny)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 2 years ago | (#42686595)

Yep, it's all coming together. As It Was Foretold.

Pointless (2)

GrahamCox (741991) | about 2 years ago | (#42686631)

Sounds utterly pointless, tedious, narcissistic and unnecessary. I'm sure it'll be a huge hit.

ADHD Trainer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42686795)

.. for those who dont quite get it yet

Oww! My Balls! (2)

Irate Engineer (2814313) | about 2 years ago | (#42686827)

Six second video bites - This is another example of "Idiocracy" come to reality. Let me summarize the content: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_4jrMwvZ2A [youtube.com]

WarioWare: You must DIY! (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42687171)

Next we'll be seeing four second video games. Oh wait, that's already happened [youtube.com] .

6 seconds of porn? (1)

richardoz (529837) | about 2 years ago | (#42687013)

The subject says it all...

Re:6 seconds of porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42687331)

Can't believe it actually took so long for some one bring up P0rN. This could take sexting to a whole new level.

Re:6 seconds of porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42688139)

Not just any pr0n, but probably underage teenagers showing body parts to other people.

a replica of (1)

katsh (2760437) | about a year ago | (#42687487)

http://robo.to/ [robo.to] been doing this for years.

Popular on Tumblr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42687691)

For those of you who don't know, GIFs are very popular on Tumblr. Groups of short GIFs from popular shows, with subtitles, are frequently reposted.

Probably this is an attempt to replicate that success, although I doubt it will work. GIFs work because every browser supports them and they've been around forever, and there's numerous tools to make them.

Easy cosumption = Low quality content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42687745)

> Posts on Vine are about abbreviation—the shortened form of something larger.

It is a phenomenon visible on social websites, FB, G+, reddit - the more facile content - which is, usually, meme pictures, works best. The long form, well thought our arguments, especially if they spread over more than 5-6 paragraphs, are ignored, tl;dr-ed, and in general buried under the cesspool of memes.

Is Twitter trying to be that? Do they want to pander to the lowest denominator?

6 Seconds? (2)

sidevans (66118) | about a year ago | (#42687867)

What if you have a stut.. a stut... a stut... a stutter-LIMIT OF VIDEO LENGTH

I Predict Penises (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42687913)

Just like chat roulette, I predict that about 70% of the videos will be of penises.

No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42687985)

Twitter is for idiots and Instagram is for people that can't read.

Marketers wet dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42687993)

For marketers if you can't sell a product in 6 seconds or less you're old news, advertising consumption just hit a new curve

http://successfulworkplace.com/2013/01/24/twitters-vine-is-a-marketers-late-christmas-gift/

Vine ???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42688857)

Hope the Vine project has protected their name and sue the pants of Twitter for ripping off their ptoject name even talking about little windows... Come on Twitter don't be going down that path it is so beneath your potential

The Scourge of Digital Minimalism: TwitterBits (2)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about a year ago | (#42689167)

Never thought I'd see the day when arbitrarily imposed 'less', and not cleverly achieved 'more' -- becomes the fad and business model. It is perverse, evolution in reverse, an ill wind.

Imagine folks abandoning Twitter en mass on the announcement of a competitor with a 139 character limit. And so on until we are down to a single bit.

I can see it now, some people will log on to TwitterBit to twit ones, some twit zeroes. If my TwitterBit matches yours we are best friends forever, if it does not we are enemies to the death. All humor will degrade to a series of obvious dumb patterns, the dumber they are the funnier they will be:

11111111111111111111 [fan site, boring]
00000000000000000 [goth site, boring]
101010101010101011 [groan, indignation]
0000000000000000001 [ROFL!]

Chuck Norris will twit neither 0 nor 1. He will go directly for the carry bit, which flips all the other bits.

Then some time in the distant future, someone will issue a series of TwitterBits that when rasterized on paper produce an amazing pictograph of Dancing Snoopy. It will take the world by storm, be reproduced on billboards and magazines.

And the human race will rediscover the print terminal and fanfold paper and have to re-learn the whole process of making pictures again. Round and round it goes.

perfect match (2)

terec (2797475) | about a year ago | (#42689265)

140 character messages, 5 second video clips, and iOS-only.

5.83 seconds only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42689423)

because of the 140-frame limit at 24 FPS of course.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?