SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Vid.me has announced that they are shutting down on December 15th 2017, saying that they could not find a path to sustainability.
This news should be of concern as content creators have been getting increasingly frustrated with Youtube's algorithms that demonetize their videos and this means they have one less alternative to turn towards.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Vid.me to Shut Down on Dec 15th 2017
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 79 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday December 05 2017, @09:59PM (3 children)
So then how should we go about convincing the non-technical general public of the benefits of spending $135 per household per year, comprising $15 per year for a domain and $10 per month for a VPS?
This is true whether "one company's platform" is YouTube/Facebook or even just a file hosting service like Amazon S3.
It's also true of advertising aggregators. In order to get away from AdSense, YouTube Partner Program, and the like, each household that runs its own website would have to find the time to sell its ad space to advertisers. How can that be made practical?
Even if distribution of Pino P's video is Pino P's problem, whose problem is distribution of Wootery's video?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:27AM (2 children)
Eh? Weren't we talking about video hosting lock-in? We don't need LBRY, we need more diversity of video-hosting platforms, and good FOSS server-side software so those who want to can host streaming videos independently. There's no need for everyone to maintain their own server or domain.
This is what the web is meant to be like: open to competing hosts that can give rise to healthy competition and an ecosystem that works well for all. There's no point wasting time planning how p2p will take over the world; the web approach works great when it's done right.
No. YouTube is a social media platform, whereas S3 is a backend technology. When people browse YouTube, they don't tend to leave the YouTube ecosystem. This is one of the reasons it's so hard for anyone to move away from YouTube. S3 on the other hand is just a backend technology, invisible to the consumer. There's nowhere near the same lock-in problem.
I'm not suggesting that each household run its own website and live the IndieWeb dream. [indieweb.org]
We should be hoping for a healthy ecosystem of competing YouTube-like platforms. That would be great. I'm really not convinced that p2p has anything to contribute here.
I don't expect others to donate their bandwidth for the distribution of my content, especially if it's monetised.
I'm not opposed to BitTorrent for distributing videos or other large blobs - it's a proven technology after all - but I can't see it replacing conventional 'webby' streaming.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:14PM (1 child)
Earlier you wrote:
Then you wrote:
If it's just video hosting platforms, then MediaGoblin ought to work for many. (The biggest drawback of MediaGoblin is probably support for iOS playback until the H.264 patents expire.) But I was confused as to how much of IndieWeb practice you were suggesting.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:15PM
When I said the 'IndieWeb dream' I meant the silly utopia of everyone having their own server. When I said 'The IndieWeb guys have it right', I meant they're right to oppose monoculture and monopolistic web platforms.
I don't have a lot of faith in MediaGoblin. Why is there not a simple embedded video demo anywhere to be seen?
Didn't know Safari on iOS lacked webm support. Weak sauce, Apple.