Author Topic: Time's invention of the year 2006.  (Read 4273 times)

Offline ScaryTooth

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,502
Time's invention of the year 2006.
« on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 05:48:07 PM »
YouTube? WTF?

I'm sorry, but a car that can go 3,145 miles on a gallon of gas is much more impressive. Videos have been on the internet for years and years, you could/can find a video of anything. YouTube just centralized it and made it popular. 

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #1 on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 05:58:52 PM »
I also saw an article somewhere about how much money YouTube was going to bring in.  Pretty sure they regret writing that one now.

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline angrykeebler

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,717
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #2 on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 06:06:37 PM »
que, who is that in your avatar?
Suck it, Pugnate.

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #3 on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 06:42:10 PM »
Just some chick.  Stock photo from DA.  She represents a character from my book, as does the guy in the sig.

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,181
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #4 on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 07:34:06 PM »
It's a hype machine.  Youtube is a great concept for a site, but nothing really more then that.  A site focussed entirely on streaming video.  Great, they've been around for years in the form of sites like gametrailers.com and the like.  I guess what they did was make it community focused, made flash players popular (great...I hate them), and made it so any idiot can let you in on what they're thinking without having to learn to type.  This is the same as all the hype over blogs and the like.  Nothing special but some people have embraced it and others hype it for that reason.  When it comes down to it youtube is a very popular website and that's really it.  It's no longer unique (well, as unique as it was), it's not very useful, and the fact that it exists has very little impact on the day to day life of the average person.  Now people kill time at work watching vlogs instead of reading blogs.  Does that compare to the car?  Not at all.  But it's a list based off of a small sample of people and it reflects their opinions.  This is them.  Youtube is hot right now, and this is what that leads to.

"The third revolution is a cultural one. Consumers are impatient with the mainstream media. The idea of a top-down culture, in which talking heads spoon-feed passive spectators ideas about what's happening in the world, is over. People want unfiltered video from Iraq, Lebanon and DarfurÑnot from journalists who visit there but from soldiers who fight there and people who live and die there."

This is where I think a lot of people are wrong about youtube and shit.  This isn't a revolution, it's more or less a fad.  Whereas 80% of what's on television is crap, 99% of what's on youtube is crap....it's just that it's served in tiny little pieces so you don't notice it as much.  I'm sick of all this "youtube is going to kill Hollywood"  and "mainstream media better adapt or it will die".  I don't buy it.  Adapt to what?  Show people what they want? That's what mainstream entertainment does. It decides what people want  to see based off of ratings, and then shows it to them.  Low ratings = no show.  The reason it sucks so much is so many idiots watch shitty shows (mid you, these are the same idiots who are the youtube power users.

How do you want it to adapt? just have hours and hours of whiny little bitches complaining about the entire world is against them?  Or do you want it to embrace the online video 'revolution'?  The second seems unlikely because every time you see a video by puff daddy or whoever on youtube there are like 100,000 comments ranging from "Get off here you rich motherfucker.  This is meant for US!" to "go back to mainstream tv!!". Oh, I know, you want hollywood to start signing internet talent so people can get paid to whine and bitch.  Ok...but where's the revenue stream come from?

Youtube isn't anything amazing.  It's a sort of slick site that's easy to use where people can watch a ton of free videos privately and without ads.  That's really all it is.  No one really knows how it's buisness model works, or if they even had one.  I'm sure google is using it as a test run for adsense expansions...like video ads, but we'll see. In the end Youtube is more of a marketing machine than an actual invention and as such doesn't really deserve any place on the list.

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #5 on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 07:51:14 PM »
Yeah, I'm with gpw.  I've no idea who is paying these people to write all this shit about YouTube.  I'm not filled with as much hatred about it as gpw always seems to be, as I don't really care if a lot of what's on it is crap (let's face it, 99% of your average internet content is shit, regardless of where you find it), but I think it's a bunch of silliness.  YouTube is nothing special.

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Cools

  • Guest
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #6 on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 07:52:35 PM »
YouTube's so last year...

Offline scottws

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6,602
    • Facebook Me
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #7 on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 08:13:45 PM »
I don't really have much to contribute other than I just discovered YouTube.com a few months ago.  I never really just browsed the site, but was either linked to there or was looking for something specific.

I've found it interesting in some ways.  For instance, I saw some fan-made songs/videos about the Bengals.  Some of them were quite good and captured the emotion of the 2005 season leading up to the 2006 quite well.  I probably never would have seen them if it were not for YouTube.com.

I also never read the comments on pretty much anything unless they are product reviews or something.

That said, the following reminds me of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back:

Oh, I know, you want hollywood to start signing internet talent so people can get paid to whine and bitch.  Ok...but where's the revenue stream come from?

"The Internet is a communication tool used the world over where people can come together to bitch about movies and share pornography with one another."

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #8 on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 09:51:58 PM »
I dunno, I think that it's revolutionary in that we aren't spoon-fed bullshit from t.v. networks. We go out and actively seek what we want, as apposed to companies determining what we are going to watch. That being said, I dunno if it's exactly invention of the year material.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,181
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #9 on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 11:15:52 PM »
...yeah, you could do that before too.

Offline Xessive

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9,920
    • XSV @ deviantART
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #10 on: Monday, November 06, 2006, 11:59:15 PM »
I don't know if YouTube would my idea of "invention of the year"... I mean videos were being distributed well before its conception.. Actually I even question whether or not YouTube was the first to provide streaming videos the way it does.. I heard of MetaCafé and Google Video well before I came across YouTube anyway (even though I know for a fact that Google Video came after YouTube).

I consider YouTube an innovation rather than an invention. Streaming video was invented, YouTube simply innovated on its concept and idea.

Offline iPPi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3,159
  • Roar!
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #11 on: Tuesday, November 07, 2006, 12:25:08 AM »
Meh.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #12 on: Tuesday, November 07, 2006, 06:42:53 AM »
I consider YouTube an innovation rather than an invention. Streaming video was invented, YouTube simply innovated on its concept and idea.

Perfect.  I don't understand how YouTube can be dumped into the invention category, let alone walk off with the title of top dog.

Like Scott, I didn't discover the site until fairly recently.  When I go there, it's usually following someone else's link (often here).  It doesn't even cross my mind to go wading through countless lowlife amateur "vlogs".  I hate that they use Flash for video.  Completely needless, and a complete pig-dog of a resource-robbing application for this purpose.  Its programmers should be forced to watch all TV and movies in their app, on a 10-year-old PC.  (Did I mention that I completely hate Flash video?)

I think the idea of Youtube is a good one, for what it is.  I agree with gpw that it's not any kind of revolution in media delivery.  Talking heads have nothing to worry about, from Youtube.  (They have other problems.)  Hollywood has even less to worry about.  Does anyone really believe that crap-quality, square-ridden videos with lo-fi sound, of little people doing little things, is going to take the place of the likes of Peter Jackson and his Lord of the Rings trilogy?  Give me a fewking break.

Offline Xessive

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9,920
    • XSV @ deviantART
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #13 on: Tuesday, November 07, 2006, 07:54:23 AM »
Perfect.  I don't understand how YouTube can be dumped into the invention category, let alone walk off with the title of top dog.

Like Scott, I didn't discover the site until fairly recently.  When I go there, it's usually following someone else's link (often here).  It doesn't even cross my mind to go wading through countless lowlife amateur "vlogs".  I hate that they use Flash for video.  Completely needless, and a complete pig-dog of a resource-robbing application for this purpose.  Its programmers should be forced to watch all TV and movies in their app, on a 10-year-old PC.  (Did I mention that I completely hate Flash video?)

I think the idea of Youtube is a good one, for what it is.  I agree with gpw that it's not any kind of revolution in media delivery.  Talking heads have nothing to worry about, from Youtube.  (They have other problems.)  Hollywood has even less to worry about.  Does anyone really believe that crap-quality, square-ridden videos with lo-fi sound, of little people doing little things, is going to take the place of the likes of Peter Jackson and his Lord of the Rings trilogy?  Give me a fewking break.
Haha well said :P Streaming/Flash vids are no real competition when it comes to quality.

I too hated them in the beginning, but now that I can download them and play them in my media players like any other video file I'm tolerant of them. Obviously they're no substitute for quality, but they do the job when it comes to funny mini-clips.

Offline poomcgoo

  • Poster Child
  • ***
  • Posts: 500
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #14 on: Tuesday, November 07, 2006, 08:40:27 AM »
I've said it before, Youtube is good stuff.  Sure, theres a lot of shit on there, but there's a lot of awesome stuff on there too.  Flash video sucks, generally, but YouTube does it best, and it makes otherwise hard-to-find things quite available.  I love using it to find live shows by my favorite bands.  Instead of having to download 30-60 MBs to watch a live version of a song I like, I just wait a few seconds and I can check it out.  No need to keep it, I'll just check out a few more songs in the time I save by not downloading it.

Vlogs suck, yeah, but there's more cool shit on Youtube than most people like to admit.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: Time's invention of the year 2006.
« Reply #15 on: Tuesday, November 07, 2006, 11:28:33 AM »
...yeah, you could do that before too.

I thought Youtube was the first? What came before?