What is Digg?22 Comments
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I wouldn't worry too much, it's almost certain they're going to ***** it up
let them waste a few million dollars setting up this network, it's good for the IT industry.
a year or 2 from now they'll see how pointless it was, and they'll come running back
(..google will wait for them) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I am getting extremely pissed at companies that want to invent a "rival," god forbid they create something original... instead of making a rival, how about they make their content more accessible?
- TheWalkingDude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The article makes some great points; they will need to be less greedy in the short term if they are going to succeed. None of this crap where they fill 90% of the screen with ads and leave the other 10% for the viewing screen. They also need to allow people to pause and wait for the video to load - I know they worry that tech savvy people will retrieve the file from their temporary cache, but not all of us have fast connections. It would be nice if it didn't require logging in too. In short, they should actually try to please the customer, instead of treating them like an addict who will do whatever they demand.
- sanman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4YouTube has 'first mover advantage' -- they came up with the idea first, they have the larger existing userbase, and they have made it their interest to allow people to see as much as they want to. The freakin networks are the desperate old-boys club trying to hold onto their monopoly and keep the "barbarians from storming the gates".
Maybe the networks will also suddenly issue a patent for a motion-sensing controller, to play catch-up, but that doesn't guarantee the success of their brand name. - Raian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@drathosX3
I totally agree with you.
These geniuses need to take a lesson in economics-- they should focus on what they do best, and let others stick with what they do best.
What networks do best (when they are not a monopoly) is to make great entertainment-- and if they stuck doing that instead of creating competitors to Google, they could keep their costs low and not have to worry about their survival-- in-fact they could even become more profitable as they allow others to worry about selling ads and focus purely on content. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3corporate clones of successfully websites never work out well and backfire in the end.
Remember Walmart's MySpace clone? - Protoss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Or in Fox's case, buy a social networking site and just post your episodes on said site.
- sicc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This will be just like youtube, only it will suck.
:) - anitab83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The real question is, would anyone watch it? If they were smart, the networks would let people post short (under 3-5 minute) clips of ANYTHING on Youtube/Google. This would almost certainly help generate buzz for some of their shows. Most TV viewers and internet users don't want to cozy up to their computers to watch a 30 minute long program where you're also forced to watch 6 minutes of ads. Even without the ads, I'd rather watch a 30 minute show on TV than 24 minutes ad-free on the computer.
Personally, Youtube has caused me to start watching The Office and to restart SNL, and Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno. It has the potential to be a great marketing tool ... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm tired of youtube, mainly because I think blogging is a poison.
- h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The networks would stand to make a lot of money simply streaming their content. They could change the advertisements to setup a different pricing structure (remember advertising keeps you from paying) and I'm sure [more] people would watch it. Distributing the episodes with ads in them is a possibility as well, but they would be quickly removed and re-distributed.
It would be nice to see some independently made material that was more than just silly clips of kids throwing propane tanks into fires. - dattaway, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Too bad patents will stunt competition and our choices.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1PLEASE digg...give users an IQ test before allowing them to participate in discussions. People get modded down for making perfectly reasonable comments. If you disagree, fine...do the INTELLIGENT thing, lay off the thumbs down button, and [gasp!] type a well-reasoned response!
- MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I really can't imagine the networks will work "together" to build a website.
Why don't they just host their shows on their own websites? Some networks already have full episodes to watch on the web. - Rachmaninoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If implemented well, I believe this could be successful. If I could find all of the shows I wanted to watch in one location, I would be more willing to trade off the TV.
It needs to be well-design: clean, fast, and have unobtrusive ads. Also, I want all of the major shows on each network available.
I don't particularly care for labeling the networks brainstorming as creating a rival for YouTube. YouTube isn't exactly the best place to get full episodes of TV shows. Making a money-making alternative for people who download torrents of TV shows might be a better comparison. - ptrader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm so sick of corporate America trying to squeeze more money out of the consumer. YouTube is perfect the way it is. I'm so sick of getting advertising stuffed down my piehole. They are going to try and kill Youtube, and everyone knows it. That is how these greedy bastards operate.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Youtube's biggest problem right now is that for some reason, they have been making a lot of changes without thinking them through first, and pissing off a LOT of users in the process. Oddly, this seems to have started after Google's acquisition. One thing that smaller entities have going for them is that they allow the users to drive its direction, rather than thinking they have all the answers. I believe that this is what allowed Youtube to become what it is, and hopefully, how it will stay - but only if the corporate bizdroids can keep their grubby hands off.
- h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How about check for previous posts before posting the story for the 17th time, guy.
- thunderer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And of course, all of this would only be available in the US.
- h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Funny how you got voted down for that but I agree with you. Giving users the ability to upload (or post in the case of blogs) anything they want just encourages them to abuse it and post pointless ***** that they think is cute.
I would just avoid those sites and let it rest, but they keep pushing them in our faces. I'm willing to bet 75% of the articles on the front page right now are blogs. - wildmXranat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This will never be successful. Why not? It goes against the core idea of why youtube shot off into Internet stardom, which was : giving a voice and platform to the small people. There's already a big backlash against CBS hogging youtube and such. As far as I'm concerned, I don't want to see their dumb clips when i browse Youtube. It's not called CorpTube for a reason !
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3This is Mark Cuban's doing...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is