What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
66 Comments
- thegsa, on 10/12/2007, -9/+60I Stare At Paintings
- beamz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Uh I wonder who is actually profitable or a even not hemorrhaging $1mil a month on bandwidth costs. It doesn't matter who is more popular, it's who can become profitable and grow.
Youtube got $11m in VC and it's burning through $1mil a month. They've been hesitant to put ads up. I don't think things bode well for them inspite of their popularity. Thinking of how to monetize things *after* you come up with something is always a bad play.
Didn't anyone learn anything from the late 90's? - ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26While YouTube may be more popular, Flickr is far more useful and FAAAAAAR better designed!!
If I had to pick one or the other, I'd pick Flickr. As long as google video is still around lol. - fingiecrookie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Seriously, people like you should be banned.
- saxmanlarry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I'm not sure how many hours of my life I've wasted on the "explore" feature of Flickr. There's just so much beauty in the better works there. There is just more to see. The first time I saw YouTube, I thought it was the worst site out there. It looks horrible, the actual video applet is still iffy. I use it only when I need to, but I simply can't see the appeal of YouTube.
Housewives can post their vacation photos to Flickr. They may have no idea how to even deal with a video file.
I stare at paintings.
----------------------------------
http://LarrysFrivolousThoughts.Blogspot.com - techiet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9There's so many photo sharing sites, aren't there? (ie. Zoomr and the rest). What kind of competitors are there for YouTube? Uh...Google Video. But that's not even as good as YouTube, it seems.
- xeeton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There are 10 major ones. The barrier of entry to DV is a lot higher than it is for a photo album site, though.
http://www.dvguru.com/2006/04/07/ten-video-sharing-services-compared/ - SouthernDigger, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14it was bound to happen... moving pictures are better than non moving ones. Thats why we stare at the tv and not paintings.
- johnsto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Remember it's using stats gathered by people who have Alexa toolbar installed... and that segment of users is always going to head towards the 'cool' sites like youtube and myspace over the more elegant ones like flickr.
- jbenson2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Interesting, but the author is comparing apples to oranges
It is similar to comparing the number of people who watch World Wrestling Entertainment vs the number of people who visit the Louvre. Both are forms of entertainment, but the audience has substantially different expectations. - velocipenguin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't see why this matters - it's comparing apples and oranges. YouTube and Flickr serve different markets by doing different things; they're not in direct competition with one another.
- nathan8225, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What a surprise video sharing is bigger than photo sharing. Flickr is much better though (even though it is owned by Yahoo!)
n8 - allenu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah, seriously. People just like looking at statistics even if it's meaningless.
- JeffD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I hear you. WWE is much more intellectual.
- miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it seems like 2 different markets to me. teens watching silly clips likely make up the bulk up youtubes demographic ? the photos on flickr are incredible imho. nice place to get good images. a lot of good photographers posting their pics.
not that I don't like youtube. it has its purposes, and will likely expand. - ultimathule, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And perhaps varied intelligence.
- pilotvaughn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's just the people refreshing the page with photos tagged "tom eating placenta"...
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8S'OK, YouTube won't be around for much longer anyway; they're hemorrhaging over $1,000,000 a month and nobody is eying them for a buyout.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not necessarily:
http://digg.com/technology/The_Great_Alexa_Spike_of_2006 - Unknown1987, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4but youtube looks and organized just so ***** horribly
- stephen2417, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Since when does anyone listen to Alexa's rankings? Does anyone realize they get their ranking information from people who have the Alexa toolbar installed?
- mike_c, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5i've found that youtube has become a bit polluted with to many mind numbing videos, its funniest video is nowhere near as good as some of the stuff on sites like ebaums. i do however, like some of the more educational and interesting videos on youtube and some of the rare videos that were backed up from some vhs tape that you wouldnt find anywhere else, these videos are hard to find with all the clutter and multiple submissions of the same video.
- nathanmock, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yes, in terms of traffic. And where's the news? YouTube exceeded Flickr's traffic in mid january.
- Mac2492, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If YouTube loses too much money, YouTube is gone. If you like YouTube, you don't want YouTube to be gone.
- Sparticuz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You can't compare Flickr with YouTube...they are different types of websites, with different goals
- PayneX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i can't believe people actually pay any attention to alexa stats.
isn't there a better alternative? - sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is stupid, comparing two completely different things...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, 2 sites that don't even do the same thing are pitted against one another? Why? So you can get on Digg? Useless information.
- opieateit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Those talkies will never make it. It may be the cats pajamas, but its a fad.
- Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Use the Block/Report this user feature, if enough people do so consistently they will get banned.
- marix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4when you say now, you mean has been for 4 months right?
- johnsto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hmm, interesting. Not sure how they did that... did they made a deal with an advertising company to share data or something? Perhaps they're trying to compensate for non-Alexa users by taking periodic snapshots and using that data as a multiplier... I dunno :)
- Unknown1987, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1they wont die a slow death it'll be quick if they can nail the UI. Look at the google vidoe came up with. that aint gonna work. Some thing thats easy to use and looks nice will win the war
- xistboi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You could have just pointed to Alexa.
- Badaudio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1like that would help
isnt it something like 1 million dollars a month? - Sheaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are so many problems with this digg story.
First, Alexa rankings are terrible. They are based entirely on data from IE users with the Alexa toolbar installed. That data is then extrapolated to provide "traffic" rankings.
Second, YouTube is not TV.
Third, these are simply two sites among hundreds. Just as YouTube is not even the largest video sharing site, Flickr is by no means the largest photo sharing site.
So to make a generalization based only on biased, inaccurate data from just two sites is idiotic. Why do people Digg these terrible links to Alexa graphs with faulty assessments? - antigoogle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1youtube is a great success! go youtube!
their costs are too high, they should put video ads just before the movies start - makario, on 09/03/2009, -0/+1It's like saying "These ratings came from stupid people who don't know what spyware is, or don't know how to get rid of it. These are the people who determine what part of the internet is popular."
- miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm glad the flash video medium has been such a success. It means we don't need windows, quicktime or real player for casual video watching. Flash has its problems, but for quick-loading throw-away viewing its the one I want to become the universal video medium (or any similar open-source alternative).
- grenz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1seems to be apples and oranges to me. The flickr folk (by and large) are there to share there photography be it hobby or professional.
Youtube on the seems to cater to the zeitgeist. Viral clips and funny little clips. To say they are in direct competition is a bit misrepresentative.
Of course then it wouldn't be news if we didn't try to invent some conflict between the two. - superstewy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They are totally different sites, they dont compete with each other. In my opinionthough Flickr is a much better site. I pay to use Flickr to store my photos and share them with all my friends. Also, it has some great community building features. The only times I use YouTube is when one of my friends send me a link to some girl fight or clips from the Family Guy.
- stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3True that.
It's "'90s", by the way. - mr804, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3My tubesteak is bigger than yours
- mustseeblog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There are even more than 40 competitors (compared here: http://www.mustseeblog.com/?p=68 ) but none of them is in YT's league.
- wpholmes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What is with that huge spike in Flickr traffic in the middle of april?
- silentvirus, on 10/25/2008, -1/+1YouTube just has more perverts
- Badaudio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2ya rly
- bajones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Youtube.com has had amazing growth over the last few months.
According to Alexa, the site is currently the 25th most popular site on the Internet. Its traffic has exceeded cnn.com, aol.com, and is still going up.
http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=400&h=400&r=6m&y=t&u=www.youtube.com&u=www.cnn.com&u=www.aol.com - Jimmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't think I'm comparing apples with oranges. People have a certain amount of time they spend for entertainment, education or profession (in the web). In this time slot it seems they spend more and more time with youtube than with flickr. Yes, it's about trends in behavior of hedonistic users in the web.
This has nothing to do which of these two sites I prefer ... ;) - ftraffa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hi,
mabe someone can explain me the heck about youtube and the so called burn rate...
If the have bandwidth costs of 1 million per month, let say additional stiorage 200K$ per months and 400K$ salaries ...
the have a total of 2 millions$ cost a months..
On the othe rhand they have 100million page impressions per day..if I put this in the google add caculator with 0,10$ and click-throu rate of 1% they can make 6 millions a month on adds...
Maybe someone can explain me where I am doing wrong here in this calc..
thx
Frank -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is