What is Digg?73 Comments
- hemphill81, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45There seems to be a mass of haters for Dvorak. To say I agree with him will only bring down the wrath upon me.
- umdigger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40Why would people give you death threats? He makes a good point. I agree as well.
- flash200, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34This is actually a very good article by Dvorak. There's no flame-baiting, and he offers some meaningful observations. There's a first time for everything, I guess.
- Clbck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29@hemphill81
I'm going to kill you. ;) - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27Dvorak got that reputation by baiting Apple fanatics. But who can blame him really? I love Apple and I've done it on several occasions.
- Woofcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Does Google video still require that silly approval? If so thats whats killing them. When people upload a video they want to share it then, not in 2-3 weeks.
- perrupa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19People hate Dvorak because he usually makes broad sweeping statements about things people either love to death or never thought to say themselves. He's a very interesting guy and has made a lot of valid points over the years but he also seems to be wrong half the time :)
I feel half of his genius is based on my "steven king theory" he throws so much stuff out there some of it's bound to be good just based on the law of averages :P - Clbck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16It took me around a week and a half, I think.
- tom6a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Dvorak says, "Even Google can't get it right" but doesn't back it up with anything. Is the approval time what he is talking about? It took me about 24 hours to get a video approved. Anyone notice any other problems with Google Video?
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"They're burning through $1.5 million a month."
YouTube must be one of those companies that's getting a "free ride", according to the telcos. Really, when one website on the vast web is dropping that amount of money each month on bandwidth, no-one is getting a free ride. - agrumbine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Would a "tubes" joke be too "yesterday"?
- unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18He makes a great point?
That YouTube is easy to use isn't a great point, it's a dull observation, made only more obvious by the fact that it's a raging success. I'm pretty sure millions of people have already figured out that it's easy, thanks for shining the light of your genius into the dark recesses of the world for us.
BTW - I think Microsoft might be on to something with this whole "Windows" thing. Yay, I'm a genius too. - yllabianbitpipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Dvorak right. Most of the fun links I get sent by people are of funny videos posted on YouTube. But let me also add that YouTube was lucky that Flash video came along at just the right time, plus a lot of people with cheaper broadband. I think a lot of people could have guessed video would be big on the net, but up until recently, doing video was hampered because of slow download times or crappy streaming quality. With You Tube it is finally you see the video and click it and it plays. Not so easily done even a year ago. So the founders get some points for seeing the need but they also owe their pants to Macromedia and Flash Video.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Dvorak. Hes like one of those prophets who are always wrong but people still take stock in what they yammers about.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8That title makes it sound like DVORAK is missing the point...
- peregrine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Well personally I think YouTube got its greatest increase when we first started seeing videos of like the starwars kid, or some random video of mentos. And when people started seeing that well this works alot nicer then windows media...or apple and its not even asking me to download. Then wow eveything started popping up their. And now every video online is hosted their if only as a mirror. Such as the 100s if not 1000s of Colbert Report/Daily Show clips that are submitted to digg daily.
Although Dvorak has a valid point which we can all agree. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Okay hes not a prophet then. Dvoraks just some smuck with an opinion that people still care about.
- Toupee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Google Video uploads ARE now instant, if anyone would bother to actually try it. They've been that way for quite a while, now.
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8DVorak saves the flame baiting only for Apple products. Did he say anything good about WWDC Keynote? Doubt it.
What I can't believe is that article where he trolls for replies to his forum by saying how much CSS sucks and it never works and is unusable. $50 says he is viewing his pages in IE6 or IE 7. Reports on digg recently show incapatibility for CSS in IE6 is 51% and in IE7 it drops to 55%! Unbelievable that this guy blames the "standards" and CSS, and not Microsoft. Sorry. I know CSS is off topic, but discussing Dvorak's similarity to a penis is right on topic.
Download Firefox, you tool. - loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not being a video nut, I was kind of curious how YouTube became such a success. I mean everybody came out with "upload your own video!" and "share it with your friends!" in the last couple years. But none of them caught on. YouTube is just simple. How could so many companies--Yahoo, Google, MSN, AOL completely miss the boat on this?
A point he missed, however, is the copyright issue. YouTube is pretty lenient and that made it a success as well. The first time I went to YouTube was for the "Lazy Sunday" video--along with millions of other people. - zeldafan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No no, the telcos don't have anything to worry about with youtube, they supply their own tubes ;)
- DirkBelig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hmmm....an outfit that makes it simple for non-technically savvy people to easily accomplish something that used to be complicated and/or cumbersome, for a reasonable price. Where have I heard of such a thing before?
Hey, wasn't there this company in Virginia that made getting onto this thing called the "Information Superhighway" as easy as popping a disc that showed up in the mail into your computer? It allowed people to chat in real time and send e-mail to each other.
Anyone remember them? Started with an "A" IIRC.... - L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think they just updated that actually. I'm pretty sure I got a "Hey Google Video Uploader!" email from them saying the process is more immediate now.
I could be wrong. A cursory search didn't turn up what I'm looking for... except that the google video blog "http://googlevideo.blogspot.com/" now says "upload and share your videos instantly".
The FAQ, however, still mentions an approval process. - KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5hes right :shrug:
- hardkoretom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7why do so many people hate Dvorak? the guy is completely insightful and knows what he is talking about.
- DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the other advantage that he doesn't mention in the article is that YouTube has also become a social site.
I had no idea about this until two days ago when I finally registered an account.
I can see how YouTube's growth rate has been so phenomenal in that respect, friends pull other friends in, who pull other people, etcetera etcetera. - V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There used to be a site that allowed you to not only DL video from sites as Youtube but also to auto-convert them to avi... I forget the url.
- nargalzius, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9To me, what people hate about Dvorak is brutally honest is is with himself and his opinions, he doesn't compromise what he thinks (right or wrong) just because "people might hate him for it." When you're as stubborn as that, you're bound to get detractors and supporters.
Still, while people may think otherwise, I've always thought his arguments always were valid. They may be wrong, but valid nevertheless. We all know that logically, the proprietary iPod in its early years should've lost to the more "open" (and smaller) audio devices, but the market has proven otherwise (wether it be by legitimate innovation, or simple icon status)... still, the logic was valid... it was just proven wrong over time.
That's how Dvorak's mind seems to work, if everyone would abandon whatever affinity (and defensiveness) to whatever brand they know, and just listen to what he says, you'll be surprised to find out that he's not trying to bait anyone, he's just telling it like it is. - Pignanelli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5God love him, he's not a complete idiot, but Dvorak tends to either a) brilliantly state the obvious or b) make sweeping generalizations that are way off base.
- cybernezumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Up until recently (judging from the email I got from Google), you needed to run a special application on your computer to manage the upload, etc. With YouTube everything is simply handled thru your regular browser. Also I've always felt that Google's video encoding looked much worse than YouTube's when using the same footage.
- mxfreak92, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3hes right thought, i mean even this guy figured out how to use youtube
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p_YMigZmUuk - davidro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think Dvorak adds something to tWiT, and his Cranky Geeks podcast is pretty good as well.
I do not understand his appeal as a columnist.
It's not just that he sails on obvious, if sometimes controversial observations. It's that his columns are insanely short and comprised entirely of one or two sentence paragraphs.
Like this comment. - Pignanelli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The brilliance behind youTube (that Dvorak kind of casually glosses over) is automatic transcoding (quality be damned) into smallish filesize flash-based clips. It seems that easy wins over good. People do it with their ***** food, their very bodies, you think they won't do it with their internet video?!
- Experiment626, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In all probability Dvorak finally wised up about how Youtube is so easy to use after he decided to upload all of those videos that he shot with his Kodak dual lens digital camera (the one he keeps on talking about on Cranky Geeks and TWiT - he goes on and on about how today's digicams finally take decent videos).
- aprice2704, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Good, cogent article. :)
- epilonious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3John C. Dvorak: Further proof that a broken clock is correct twice a day.
- flash200, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Started with an "A" and ended with "Look, I just want to cancel my f***ing service!"
- R0CKY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google video has a long way to go to compete with the use ability of You Tube, some of comments here are factually incorrect. For example, Google's verification process has not been immediate at all. They have had issues with the system and said as much in an e-mail to me when I commented on Google's Uploading system in Google Groups, this was only a few days ago.
They further confuse users by having a desktop uploader and a web uploader, You Tube does it all by one web interface. To further complicate things, the desktop uploader is bugged in that some users cannot log in to their accounts with it. Google even has a support page for this very issue - it has over 10 "solutions" for users to try - I wonder how many bothered - I certainly did not.
I think the only thing Google has over You Tube is file size, You Tube asks for files to be less than 10 minutes long, I don't think Google has any such restriction. Personally I was surprised Google put this out even in Beta form, it is plainly so far behind the competition.
You Tube have useability down to a fine art and that's why it is succeeding, just as Dvorak said. The only problem is how on earth are they going to turnaround the finances - there's no way this can remain a free service for much longer, the costs are astronomical. - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"the incredible desire people have to share video clips with each other. That's now apparent."
DUH! This guy is getting paid to tell people stuff this obvious? The internet didn't need the dot-coms exactly because people are interested in sharing. Wikipedia, Flickr, Myspace ...
They told us we didn't need all of that uplink speed. Because they wanted it reserved for downlink .... - jeriqo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's the shame that while the industry is moving to HD video, some people still enjoy watching 300*200 compressed 10:1 videos.
I guess it would be better si the USA had faster internet connections. - greggish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Dvorak: "Then comes YouTube. The first thing you notice about YouTube is the lack of barriers to entry. You can sign up quickly and upload anything in any format right away."
Hey John, that's not what "barriers to entry" means. That's a term that means how difficult it is for a competitor to enter your market space. I think you were going for "ease of use". - hardkoretom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"the lack of barriers to entry" does not mean how easy it is to use, it means its easy to throw anything you want up there with utter disregard to all copyright laws.
greggish, why dont you use all of the words that were use to make a better assumption of what somebody said. - JimNtexas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dvorak has been very wrong about a bunch of things over the last few months, but he's exactly correct about YouTube.
- kubudubudubuntu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"There must be a video bubble."
no dammit, they are video tubes! - hardkoretom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2he isnt getting paid to talk about something obvious. he is getting paid for giving his opinion.
- kubudubudubuntu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just see crankygeeks, thats pretty simple minded of him.
- theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The only reason YouTube is successful is becuase their player works, fast, every time. It doesnt take 30 seconds, it loads as fast as you can load flash and starts playing with almost no buffering. Theres no saving videos to your desktop then waiting for your player to load, no watching embedded Windows Media take 3 minutes to buffer, no waiting for QuickTime to get off its ***** ass and load and YouTube is never ever busy. It just gives you the video you want right now with minimal hassle and not only that:
YouTube has become a by-word for reliable web streaming, if anyone has a video to share, if anything cool appears on digg or somewhere the first thing people will want is a YouTube link because it just bloody works.
YouTube is like Starbucks or McDonalds - it might not be the best quality and it might be locked in a commercial video format but you know that when you need to see a video YouTube wont ***** you around, you know what you're gonna get. - nguetta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Copycat newcomer : Metacafe ?
Give me a break : Metacafe was created in 2003. Oh yeah, he has SERIOUSLY looked at the alternatives. But he DID not make a fact check.
Lamer. - Flamekebab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The hardest part of the process is the user managing to get the video onto a computer where it can be uploaded to YouTube. Nowadays with digital camcorders and still cameras that shoot .MOV files it is not that hard and most cams come with software to make it easier."
*DO* most digicams these days use the .MOV format?
I know my old Olympus C-2 uses it, but my far newer Dimage G530 uses some sort of MPEG4 AVI format. My Mustek DV4000 uses ASF (although it claims to be MJPEG) and my Nokia N70 uses either 3GP or MP4.
Can anyone else back this statement about most cameras using the .MOV format? - Youpinadi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I wonder how such articles can go on the popular section, I wonder if people actually read the article.
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is