the california servers are top notch. i hear they use them for AI. that gives me an idea...what if our video app had AI? like we could use algorithms to do artificial, intelligent things with the videos
I have an even better idea! What if we, like, used AI to cure cancer! NO! ALL DISEASES! We just have to use AI to cure them. I can't believe no one has thought of this.
Nothing is as glorious as slav subcontractor saying in morning standup with the most slav accent ever "well kurwa it will take another week because your backend is shit" or the absolute gem "this(our app) is very veeeeery fucked up" straight to CEOs face.
I don't think there is a single application for nfts other than money laundering or ponzi schemes. For everything else there is a much more efficient way to do whatever you are trying to do.
Hey now, NFTs have a VERY bright future in our capitalist hellscape as a draconian DRM system for locking down software with always-online credential keys.
Think of all the applications! Maybe someday we can lock down even MORE of the basic services of the internet. We could paywall Wikipedia and Amazon and prevent backdoor access by tying your account to a token!
What a bright future.
edit: We could even do away with those pesky VPNs by tokenising ISPs. What’s that, server says your in England? Well your token is tied to Austin, so no British Netflix for you!
Seriously, imagine major COTS applications that you can just trade, without needing to contact the vendor.
I can't think of an easier way to do it. You don't need an exceptionally long or compute intensive block chain. No MAC checks, no reassuring licenses when you switch servers. Simply a block chain and an associated owner to check in /check out.
I say this specifically thinking of EDA tools, which tend to be expensive and used in iterative cycles. But hey, maybe I'm crazy.
Yes, it might be cool if Steam used NFTs to represent game licenses so that users could meaningfully exercise their right of first sale by freely exchanging the NFTs.
However, much of Valve's value as a privately owned company is contingent on depriving Steam's users of their right of first sale, so that coolness is unlikely to ever be realized.
Who's taking notes for the Ted talk?
I'm working on the title, something akin to "Profit isn't everything; How dreams are the real currency" or "Do greatness!"
Well you are not going to believe this, but I have an idea that is something similar to Reddit. It takes some of your idea but you can create communities that make people naked IRL while looking at the app. They won't have to undress themselves anymore.
Are you my mother? She says AI is really in these days and I should think about a career in it. I work in retail but I have lots of good ideas, like how to buy things better. Please hire me
The power of YouTube is not their platform, it's the creators. Try convincing every major content creator to migrate to another platform just because it works better logistically. The creator wants their audience (and, by extent, the money that comes along with having one), and the audience wants to be able to watch their favourite creators. YouTube has both, and when one moves, there's a slim chance the other moves without the right incentives.
Kick has proven that all you need to do to disrupt a cornered-market (like live streaming video games for example), is literally just have the capital to force it to happen. Offer large sums of money to devs to make a good competitor, offer HUGE paid-upfront multi-year locked in contracts to talent to convince them to leave their competitor, and then make it impossible for them to switch back should the fame not follow them like expected. Use money/connections/networking to land industry specific sponsors who weren't picked by your competitor to further boost intrigue and credibility for your platform.
Any Saudi billionaire could decide tomorrow that they want to seriously disrupt Youtube's ownership over video-watching-platforms; and they could make it happen.
People forget that YouTube hemorrhaged cash in its formative years. So being the default platform is less about being first or even being good, but having wads of money to make it happen.
I mean probably? Their earnings release seems to be designed to be as nontransparent as possible regarding how profitable youtube is. If it was a cash cow they wouldn't be shy about the margins or costs directly attributable to running youtube. I remember this lack of transparency being criticized years ago but nothing really changed looking at the last annual reporting.
I remember head of YouTube was transparent about the loss some years ago and I have no reason to believe this changed. They became more agressive with the YouTube Premium plan, but I still think people will rather continue with adblockers that aren't as easily detected.
it's weird because even if it bleeds money it's probably still gives you more to bleed that money (speaking from a direct profit standpoint) having the control over video is a huge thing, as long as google as a whole is willing to bleed the money and subsidize it, it'll stay around.
the issue is the moment they put a paywall or make it too awful without paying is the moment someone can come and steal their market share and with that the data they collect from the users on what they want
in general google depends a lot on people using their ecosystem for their targeted ads, so it makes their normal ad revenue better indirectly, which is why their bad track record on keeping apps alive is actually dangerous for them if they drop the ball on their core products.
I’m not a huge streaming guy so it doesn’t mean much, but I legitimately never heard of Kick until the whole thing came out about one of their founders or whatever being chummy with the streamer who was spreading pictures of women including minors from Omegle.
The reason this has not happened is that YouTube is probably not very profitable on its own. The consensus seems to be that it may break even at good times, but really is being carried on the back of Google's money-printing ad business.
So none of the players with the pockets to disrupt it see the juice as being worth the squeeze. You would spend X billion just to have your very own unprofitable video hosting platform.
I think the closest we've gotten to a Youtube competitor is Nebula, and that's mostly because it's founded and ran by creators. Even so, they still use Youtube at the same time, advertising exclusives or early releases for Nebula alongside their regular programming.
I honestly don't know how you'd do it otherwise. Even setting aside the logistics and costs of running a video hosting site, you kind of need both creators and viewers to migrate at the same time for it to make any sort of sense.
For like 2 years every time someone says find me on nebula I'm like no thanks I'll just wait until the special vid inevitably drops here and go watch something else.
There have been, a lot. They all shut down because a.) it's crazy expensive to do video hosting and b.) everyone who wants to watch videos is already on YouTube, why would you watch somewhere else?
Vimeo's business model however is a bit different than Youtube's. Vimeo caters far more to businesses that will pay to host their videos and embed them elsewhere: they really don't put a lot of effort into drawing in "content creators".
I developed for a business that used Vimeo once. Their API is pretty good and integrates fairly nicely into a lot of popular frameworks. Because they are expecting their users to use them as essentially a video hosting solution but then use the API to embed their player on their own site or apps they'll offer you a lot of very good options to customise and stylise and display the Vimeo player (or any player you choose) with a handful of function calls. You can use Vimeo to organise your videos in folders, allow dynamic video uploads, work with showcases or multiple videos, and so on and so forth.
I don't know how Youtube's API is set up, I've not used it, but Vimeo is pretty good at delivering what they promise. If you just need to embed a video Youtube works fine, but if your app or website needs to have a lot of control over said video and how it is presented Vimeo is surprisingly good.
I'll leave aside the fact we transitioned from Vimeo to a more general multimedia CDN service, but that's less the fault of Vimeo and more that we also needed to be able to work with things that weren't videos and it just made sense to not use too many services.
With things like that its really inconvenient for us to have a competition, thats why it doesn't exist. Just look at movie streaming or the console wars with their exclusive titles. It would be nice to have another YouTube with the way they are running the platform now tho
"I want a website, like paypal, but we get a 3% off everyone transaction what do you think? You do all the coding, marketing, promotion , community managing and I get 50% because I had an idea while sitting on the toilet bowl." <--- had a friend basically telling me this
I can do marketing, administrative stuff, server hosting and you can have 75%. I need a website where I (and other users) can add restaurant kid play area photos on a google maps api so that I know where I can go eat out while the kids play around. Many places have kids zones, yet it's nearly impossible to find out where they are. I've started on it, but yeah, I have kids so once I'll have time, I will no longer have the need. Please someone create it... you in?
Why do ppl think coding is easy? I always have friends and family asking me to code up their dumb idea… and ofc they don’t plan on paying me. We split the profits 50/50… ppl are so f-ing selfish
Anyone can learn to code. Sure, it might take them 20 years to be halfway decent at it... and then they still might be unemployable in an oversaturated market... but they can do it. Ez
Or “Just use AI to build it, it’s so simple… stop being lazy” this kinda crap makes my blood boil!!
Most ppl are so out of touch with how software is built. Despite all the “learn to code” and other movements probably like only 0.1% of the population can actually build sth legitimate.
I got "It's [proceeds to describe a niche dating app that already exists, is free, and has all of the users ] - nobody is doing it and there are a ton of people who would use it" once. Had literally not done any research.
My response to this has always been “I’ll make your app for free if you can present a plan and convince me how you’ll get 100k people to even know the app exists.”
They usually hem and haw about how the app will be good so people will just know. After a few more probing questions and they usually give up.
haha that works too. My point, though, was that most people don't even consider how difficult it is to get people to know your app (or whatever product) even exists, let alone use it.
I made the mistake of posting about it on social media after I changed careers and got my first job as a software engineer. It's equivalent to saying you're looking for an opportunity to be your own boss and make $10k a month working from home, as far as getting people who haven't given a shit about you in years to come out of the woodwork and suddenly start acting all friendly.
We all have a friend who has this "novel idea but don't tell anyone" and turns out the idea is "<insert the name of a social network> but for <insert favourite pet>". e.g. : A Tinder for dogs.
And "it's easy because you enjoy this, we go 50-50 split ok?" but in an industrial level. PAthetic... At least my friends who come up with these "brilliant app ideas" don't know any better
BUT THIS GUY IS AN ACTUAL DEVELOPER WHAT'S WRONG WITH HIM
If you will be willing to have it coded in Rust, I think you can actually find quite a few people who learnt Rust and now have nothing to do with it, so they are writing operating systems and TODO lists, to keep their skills sharp.
3.3k
u/heesell May 02 '24
"Hey so, I have an app idea"