Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Yahoo! Media The Internet Youtube

Yahoo May Build Its Own YouTube 162

Posted by Soulskill
from the nine-years-and-billions-of-videos-late dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Re/code reports that Yahoo will soon be stepping into the realm of internet video. They're seeking to take advantage of complaints from users who make videos for YouTube that they don't make enough money for their efforts. Yahoo has told content producers it can get them a bigger slice of the pie. 'For now, at least, Yahoo isn't talking about replicating YouTube's open platform, which lets users upload 100 hours of content every minute to the site. Instead, it is interested in cherry-picking particularly popular, more professional YouTube fare. Yahoo has also told some video owners that it can use its well-trafficked home page and other high-profile real estate to promote their clips on a non-exclusive basis. After a year, one source inside Yahoo said, it might open the platform up further.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo May Build Its Own YouTube

Comments Filter:
  • by Curupira (1899458) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @10:35AM (#46609465)
    ...in fact, forget the Youtube thing.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Have they asked themselves what problem they're trying to solve? Do we really need another YouTube?

      • by CTU (1844100)

        The problem is google fucking up youtube

        • by Meski (774546)
          Yahoo are likely to do a worse job. Look at gmail compared to yahoo's atrocity. Look at whatever yahoo call their search compared to google.
          • by Wolfrider (856)

            --Forced to agree. Longtime yahoo email user (over 10 years) and they have f*cked it up so bad that now I have to switch. Shame, too - I really liked them up until they took Tabs out of their email. Between google and yahoo, I no longer trust yahoo.

    • by Virtucon (127420)

      You forgot the booze!

  • ads (Score:5, Informative)

    by stokessd (89903) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @10:35AM (#46609469) Homepage

    They're seeking to take advantage of complaints from users who make videos for YouTube that they don't make enough money for their efforts.

    Lets hope they put in even more ads. I really like the unskipable 30 second ads before some shitty 15 second video.

    • Re:ads (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gbjbaanb (229885) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @10:52AM (#46609575)

      it doesn't need more ads, just take less of a cut from them.

      Google quite happily pays out a tiny amount from each ad and creams off billions. Yahoo is coming along to give us some competition, reduce its take, and overall we should be happy about that. The only one who loses is Google.

      Competition is good in markets.

      • Re:ads (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BasilBrush (643681) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @10:59AM (#46609613)

        I didn't know there was any lack of competition in the video serving market. Other video websites seem to find it hard to compete with YouTube. What makes Yahoo different? After all Yahoo hasn't been a force in anything much since the days when web-links were magenta and underlined, and most web page backgrounds were Windows grey.

        • Re:ads (Score:5, Informative)

          by wiredlogic (135348) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @12:30PM (#46610033)

          It was actually Motif gray since Mosaic was originally for X only.

        • Even google (google video) couldn't compete with youtube. That's why they had to buy it.
        • by tlhIngan (30335)

          I didn't know there was any lack of competition in the video serving market. Other video websites seem to find it hard to compete with YouTube. What makes Yahoo different? After all Yahoo hasn't been a force in anything much since the days when web-links were magenta and underlined, and most web page backgrounds were Windows grey.

          What other sites are there?

          Vimeo is probably the biggest alternative, and they have a good following for the "high quality indie film" market - given the videos I see posted there

    • by NIK282000 (737852)

      Do you also like regular, free, user generated content? Because that's the only way you are going to get it.

      • by stokessd (89903)

        I'm actually OK with weeding out a crapload of user content. I don't need a 3 minute tutorial, with a 30 second intro, and 20 second outtro completely drenched in speed metal and cheesy effects to show me something that could have been typed out in three sentences of text.

        I've had a free regular and, I've been told, very helpful website with no advertising (other than my own services) for many years now. There would still be useful content on the web without ads. There was when it was starting.

        i'm just o

    • The adds need to be in the form of a banner on the bottom of the video... or adds on the left or right of the video.

      I agree that video ads are unacceptable.

      • by amiga3D (567632)

        Most people are okay with them. The alternative is....nothing. This Yahoo site will still have the ads but they're going to cherry pick the content and pay a little better. I don't see where it's really any improvement for most people.

        • [Yahoo will] cherry pick the content and pay a little better. I don't see where it's really any improvement for most people.

          Some people's favorite video producers will be able to afford to license recognizable music for their videos. Or it might just be that the producer can keep producing videos as opposed to ending a series entirely in favor of a better paying job, as this anonymous commenter suggested [slashdot.org].

          • by amiga3D (567632)

            No doubt it will benefit some people but as a competitor to youtube it'll have to improve things for everyone. Not sure that is their goal.

    • There are ads on YouTube?

      • There are ads on YouTube?

        Yes. The ads typically appear on videos that YouTube won't let you watch because "This video requires Adobe Flash Player" or "The content owner has not made this video available on mobile".

        • by CTU (1844100)

          I do not understand the later one, just what the heck dose it matter if someone watches on a mobile device or not?

          • just what the heck dose it matter if someone watches on a mobile device or not?

            For one thing, mobile devices don't support Adobe Flash Player. They never did in the case of iOS, and they no longer do in the case of Android. YouTube needs Flash Player to obfuscate the advertisement display process and streaming process in order to deter development of effective ad blockers and stream recorders. For another, some video producers had already exclusively sublicensed mobile rights to a party other than YouTube. I'm guessing YouTube assumes that collecting advertisement revenue from viewers

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Equally an alternative would be to actually make a Decent Dynamic Site, something that nobody seems to care about wanting to make despite ALL the good shit we have in JavaScript now, and it actually works fast in all browsers that matter. (that includes IE9+!)

      Seriously, it isn't that hard to make a good site where there is a common side or top navigation with all the other content loading below it, then have the ads in there that just rotate every minute or so.
      Downright deny flash ads, image ads and text ad

    • Even better, when I want to watch a movie trailer or funny commercial, I have to watch an ad first. So, I have to watch an ad to watch an ad. Yo dawg.
    • They're seeking to take advantage of complaints from users who make videos for YouTube that they don't make enough money for their efforts.

      Lets hope they put in even more ads. I really like the unskipable 30 second ads before some shitty 15 second video.

      Run a HOSTS file (Howdy apk), and use Tcpview www.sysinternals.com (Microsoft), easier HTTPNetworkSniffer www.nirsoft.net there may be better (wireshark is too much overhead) but these work for me.

      Find where the ad is coming from and block it, if that doesn't work, I'll just download the video, it comes without any filler.

    • I never see the ads...

      Technology is a wonderful thing.
    • Get rid of flash and use the HTML5 player. Those ads don't exist when using it.

  • If it's only for established professional video publishers, it's not really YouTube as much as Hulu. Or perhaps Yahoo has the right idea to fill the gap between YouTube and Hulu for the strongest YouTube Partners.
    • by TWX (665546) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @11:36AM (#46609791)
      Sounds to me that it's more like Blip.tv, Vimeo, or perhaps Funny or Die, than Hulu.

      I don't expect it to work because I don't expect enough content to be on it to justify my going there to look at random content when there aren't enough contributors. I generally only find myself going to non-Youtube video sites when someone sends me a link to a video that's on one of those sites, not to browse or search myself. That may well be because of their interfaces not making it as easy to find the content I want in the first place or to find like-items to what I'm currently viewing, but for whatever reason, Youtube has the content and the way to find it better than the other video sites at the moment.

      I wish Yahoo well, don't get me wrong, but we'll just have to wait and see if they actually manage to make something or if this is just another, "Me Too!" moment.
    • I agree that you have to start at the bottom and build a community if you want to build a solid following. Big name titles mean people will stop in, and forget the place even exists once the video is done playing. I know I did that for years with anything aside from Youtube.

      Not only are they aiming at the wrong end of the spectrum here , the non-exclusive video hosting means that nobody will bother linking to their copy versus the Youtube version. They're both free to watch, but Youtube has the advantag

  • by The123king (2395060) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @10:54AM (#46609591)
    If it means i don't have to deal with Google+
  • Good (Score:5, Informative)

    by gigaherz (2653757) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @10:56AM (#46609599)
    Google is increasingly trying harder to get me to use my real name while browsing/commenting on YouTube, even though I have repeatedly stated that I do not want to do so. The sooner there's less abusive competition, the better.
    • by Virtucon (127420)

      That's the trend, to tie you to your comments directly and to your marketing preferences as well. That way they can sell your likes and dislikes to the highest bidder and use your "recommendations" to push products without your consent. Frankly the d-anonymizing of the Internet is a bad thing and gives people many more tools to categorize you.

    • by jez9999 (618189)

      Yeah, and Yahoo! are the perfect guys to be less abusive.

    • Yeah, I've grown tired of that prompting for my real name, too.

      It's also rather hard to find features you don't use much, such as logging out. When I'm away from home, like at the library, I want to do that. I really really want to.

      When the clock is about to run out, I don't want to have to try the Google main page, Google Alerts, my YouTube home page, Google Crochet and such to find the inconspicuous part of the obscure page where this is possible.

      Yeah, I know it's not that hard a thing to remember, o

  • by JoeyRox (2711699) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @10:58AM (#46609607)
    For my own experience the quantity and length of ads on Youtube has reached the tipping point where I start dreading even going to Youtube anymore. It's fine to see a 5 second ad for a video I know I will enjoy, but the ads on the 'speculative' videos where I'm just hopping around looking for something interesting to watch are beyond ridiculous. The other day I watched 10 crappy videos in a row, all of which had at least a 5 second-then-skip ad at the beginning, and one with a must-watch 15 second ad. That totaled one minute of ads for what turned out to be zero seconds of entertainment.
    • by corezz (1603659)
      Why don't you use AdBlock+ like the rest of us? I didn't know ads existed on the net until you brought it up just now.
    • by DiEx-15 (959602)
      Not only that: There is no quality control over it.

      Friday, I watched an ad for something called "The American Parasite". It was basically making some accusations and saying over 250 million Americans have this "parasite" and it was being covered up by the government and medical fields.All being done in a ASAP Science kind of way in order to somehow get people to trust them.

      Well, knowing what bullshit smells and looks like, I did a quick fact check. Turns out this "parasite" is nothing more than a yea
  • by kimvette (919543) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @11:08AM (#46609651) Homepage Journal

    Holy 2005, Batman!

    Google has a 9 year lead in this and they've been doing it better than anyone. How does Yahoo expect to compete in this space?

    Honestly the one company I'm surprised HASN'T entered this space is Microsoft because their M.O. lately hasn't been to improve their core product offerings and give customers what they want, but to get into market segments where they see OTHERS succeeding, only to fail miserably (see: MP3 players, search engines) - even in cases where they once dominated the market then let it languish without further development because it hadn't hit critical mass yet (see: PDA/multimedia devices and Smartphones).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rainwater (530678)
      They can compete by offering better revenue for more high quality content. If you read the article, they are not trying to build a "Youtube". It is more like Hulu for web only videos.
    • by FlyingGuy (989135)

      This is really simple. They have the infrastructure, they have the bandwidth. There are a lot of really quality content generators out there that Google just rapes. Here is a really cogent explanation ( ironically on You Tube ) by Jack Conte of Pomplamoose.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

      Really listen to what he is talking about and you can understand how Yahoo could just kick Google's ass in this space.

  • Anyone who makes a youtube clone with less ads and no stupid social-tie-in comment system will demolish youtube very quickly. Unfortunately, since it's Yahoo, they're incapable of doing that. They will screw it up epically.
    • by corezz (1603659)
      Makes u wonder why other long-lived sites like Vimeo, DailyMotion, and maybe a hundred other me-too video sites havne't taken off since they have "less ads and no stupid social-tie-in comment system"? Just a curious question.
      • by hendrips (2722525)

        I don't know about Vimeo, but it's been my experience that a several of these competing video sites actually have more annoying and intrusive ads, though no Google+, thank God. Maybe I've just been unlucky.

    • by TWX (665546)
      There already are sites like Vimeo that don't have the social-tie-in. Obviously it's not working like you propose.

      I'm just getting tired of all of the Youtubers constantly showing up on each other's channels for little more than self-promotion. Once in awhile is fine, but it seems like they're cross-pollinating in a giant Youtube circle-jerk and unless you're following all of them it gets rather old rather quickly.
      • There already are sites like Vimeo that don't have the social-tie-in. Obviously it's not working like you propose.

        Vimeo's guidelines [vimeo.com] require uploaded videos to be not only non-infringing but also the uploader's own work (permission is explicitly not enough) and without "commercial intent". Uncertainty around how those rules shall be interpreted makes me hesitant to recommend it as a general-purpose alternative to YouTube. For example, any video containing footage of a video game is banned if uploaded by anyone other than the game's copyright owner, which appears to rules out video game reviews that use footage of the g

    • So, less ads and no data mining, it will get money via unicorns I presume.

  • by jones_supa (887896) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @11:20AM (#46609705)

    I welcome them. YouTube needs a realistic competitor. Why I say realistic is because there are already a good bunch of similar video sites but they have hard time rivaling YouTube.

    The YouTube support for both watchers and content creators is terrible. If there's a technical problem in the site, good luck contacting anyone. Same thing for video makers: your channel might get flagged as infringing (and thus closed) completely automatically, based on some random troll viewer doing the flagging maliciously. After that, sorting out the situation is rather painful.

    • This is a youtube competitor like Crackle or Hulu is a competitor. It will fail if it wants to be Youtube, given the policies at Yahoo. This is more of a video commerce site for a curated few, not a place to throw up videos for the hell of it.

      • by Mashiki (184564)

        This is a youtube competitor like Crackle or Hulu is a competitor.

        Let's be realistic, if you're outside of the US, and don't use a US based proxy neither one of those work properly. In turn, that's why youtube has the pull it does.

    • by amiga3D (567632)

      This is not really a competitor. Considering what the price is for browsing youtube it's hard to imagine anything better.

      • Considering what the price is for browsing youtube

        Does "the price" include the price of a VPN to circumvent "Not available in your country"?

        • by amiga3D (567632)

          I guess that would depend on where you live. Some day soon we may all need VPN's to be safe.

  • Try to shove yahoo+ down our throats and it might work out for you

  • YahooTube

    That is all

  • Why does Yahoo! need a new YouTube alternative when they already have Broadcast.com?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]

  • If their recent redesign of YahooGroups is any indication, this will be a massive train wreck. The overhaul of YahooGroups was definitely a case of "fixing" something that wasn't broken. I admin three long-standing fora on YahooGroups (one even dates all the way back to before the eGroups acquisition) and plan to migrate all of them off of their system. Randomly dropped members, members who want to be removed but can't be, and other stupid shit.

    Replacement will be a hosted solution of my choosing, on a serv

  • by SethJohnson (112166) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @01:19PM (#46610291) Homepage Journal
    A long while ago Yahoo tried to compete with eBay offering YahooAuctions. Their heart wasn't in it, and they killed it off. The potential there was huge and because there is no competition, eBay has enjoyed enormous profits at the expense of anyone trying to sell stuff. The commission they take off every sale is huge. Yahoo could shave the commissions down just a bit and still make a healthy profit.

    Oh, and it would be trivial for Yahoo to make a craigslist competitor. I wish they would. Heck, with flickr, they've already got the photo hosting set up. Users would be attracted by improved interface and excellent mobile buying and selling app. At present, Craigslist doesn't care about either of these things and deserves to be knocked off its laurels.
  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @01:24PM (#46610315)

    Google makes it REALLY hard to create accounts now that aren't tied to your real identity. Every time I try with nicknames and non-name handles, I get told there's something suspicious about my account (yeah right) and that they're blocking it.

    If Yahoo doesn't try to make it a social tracking node (like the Google+ crap ruining the comments section), pays out well for hits, and provides a better interface for screening out the crap (low rated videos that get millions of hits based on a good teaser, duplicates, etc.) I think they stand a great chance of seeing a ton of videos migrate.

  • Archive.org (Score:5, Informative)

    by ikhider (2837593) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @01:41PM (#46610397)
    I prefer to post on Archive.org. The site can support different resolutions and can even run on Libre-based operating systems. Also, you don't have to worry about regional restrictions. For example, I may send someone a Youtube link to a friend in Germany, but she cannot view it due to region restrictions. However, an Archive.org link will work. I would prefer Archive.org as the place for original, independent video content. No ads, no stress.
  • Ars also has an article saying Yahoo maybe poaching Youtube "Stars" like Jenna Marbles.
    http://arstechnica.com/busines... [arstechnica.com]

    Bachelor of Science in Psychology, and later attended Boston University for her Masters of Education in Sport Psychology and Counseling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org] she's no slouch, and a sense of humor that's just enjoyable.

    I first came across her in the video "How to trick people into thinking you're good looking" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com] and it surprised me how decent it

  • Why build something from scratch? Why not just buy Vimeo, like Google bought YouTube?

  • ...but nobody will come.

  • 15 years ago Yahoo! destroyed broadcast.com, something that was better than YouTube will ever be. Now they have decided to start broadcast.com minus the in-house professionals that encoded and streamed the content for you. In April 1999, Yahoo! acquired the company [wikipedia.org] for $5.7 billion (or over $10,000 per user) in stock and renamed it ...

  • Does nobody remember 2005? Yahoo Video and Google Video competed with YouTube, it was not uncommon to see videos cross-posted on more than one.

  • Back in 2006, Yahoo bought JumpCut. I met some of the JumpCut founders shortly after the acquisition, and they were hopeful at the time, because they we being rebranded as "Yahoo Video".

    Other than the implementation of ads, that doesn't different significantly from what they had 8 years ago. Why did it take this long?

  • Yahoo cannot even make yahoo mail work right. The "redesign" -- when it works -- is not user friendly at all. Most of the time it doesn't load pages and show mail at all.

    Good luck getting video going.

    They need to pack their shit and go home, not blow more shareholder money on a(nother) losing venture.

  • As much as their purchase of Oculus Rift bothered me, I think I can see where it's going now.

    Some day, everyone will have a VR camera on their cellphones or Google Glass. Yahoo will try to catch up, but it won't matter.

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...