Facebook on the other hand turned my Facebook "page" into a payola scheme where I had to pay to access my audience. Lame.
Do you think the 4000 watch hours in the past 12 months is too high or just right?
Seems like the measure would be which platform generated more clicks that convert.
Create a group. They get feed priority from what I've been able to gather.
All my notifications are groups these days.
31% embeds on my website
19% Youtube search
3% Youtube browse features
3% Youtube channel page
Facebook has a lot of problems on its plate right now, but one of the worst trends has been the poorly thought out march to video. It came from Zuckerberg (1 and 2) and was repeated by senior FB executives, and then became a mantra for publishers. Many made large investments in video programming for Facebook, only to find the money isn't there and Facebook later decided to demote publisher content (3 and 4).
This is not just large media companies that got burned, I know some smaller producers who believed the "five years the feed will be all video" baloney and shifted their efforts accordingly. Some were doing really important work, too, around causes or local news. What a waste.
Meanwhile, it seems that overall video consumption in Facebook is declining, and it's the one percent that get the most engagement, regardless of who the publisher is (5).
I personally would not mind if Facebook turned back the clock 10 years, when most conversations seemed to be personal and text-based, and the truckloads of memes, ads, gaming achievements, real and fake news, and videos of cats playing the piano had yet to be shoved down Facebook's maw and into our feeds. Old-school text discussions seem to work for HN, why can't it work for Facebook?
People don't really read in the same way as you might have previously expected. ("Reading a short blurb or a tweet" is not the same thing.) Can't or don't want to, I don't know, but they don't. You see the edges of it here, too--tl;drs on HN posts, sometimes, that are less than a screenful of text. And people think you're "spending a lot of effort" when you bang out a post about as long as yours is--and, sometimes, try to frame it as a bad thing.
I tend to think Thomas Pettitt has a point.
 - https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/the_future_is_medieval.ph...
The ui is bad, the # clicks needed is growing, autoplay random videos vs playing what I actually want to watch, all of these issues are getting worse.
Messenger --> rampant competition from about a dozen apps.
Community --> reported audience declines. From participation fatigue, privacy concerns, and competing sites.
Publishing --> push-back from content providers and publishers who don't wish to be assimilated into the 'borg'.
Payments --> no real competitive offering.
FederatedID/SSO --> rampant competition from Google, LinkedIN, Github, etc.
There's something to be said for building products that make people's lives easier and truly happier, and I'm not sure that FB does either anymore.
You could have made this exact argument in 2012 when FB was worth $20/share. Was this argument wrong in 2012 but correct in 2018?
Facebook is to video as youtube is to social networking.
One of the most common complaints was something like "I'd never use Facebook, because I hate the company!"
Also, frankly, the tech product for livestreaming isn't anywhere near feature competitive.
Everybody remembers when Facebook took over from Gmail, right?
My 2c is that for mass consumption, streaming is where the puck is going, not short-form videos. Kids are watching Minecraft streaming, they're not watching punks like Logan Paul until they are in their teens, and my guess is as those younger kids get older, tastes will change and Paul et al will be done. And even when you think about teens, streamers like Dr Disrespect seem to capture far more zeitgeist than YouTubers. Is Casey Neistat really a thing anymore?
IMHO Facebook really should be doubling-down on local sharing and improving that experience, Google Photos is far and away the best photo product for me. Replicating YouTube won't work, the quality of the platform and the network effects are too strong. Whether Facebook can do something disruptive like Twitch I don't know. Maybe IRL streaming of C-list celebrities like Snoop or Kylie Jenner?
In particular, a major difference between streaming and edited short-form videos is the density of content, and the preference for that highly depends on the availability of your time. If you have all the free time in the world (or even an actual need to spend it because you're stuck waiting somewhere where you don't want to be), then streaming is excellent; if you're generally busy and overwhelmed with things you want/need to do, streaming sucks, you want an edited, compressed "highlight reel" that gets straight to the point.
So the fact that streaming is the thing for particular group (even if generally trend-setting) doesn't mean that streaming is where the puck is going; they might stick with particular brands/services/tools/ecosystems because of the habits they form now, but they are likely to use less streaming in a decade (and the youngsters replacing them are going to take up streaming) because of changing needs in their life.
This statement intrigued me a bit, so I decided to check out what Google Photos is (sorry, you have so many products and change them so quickly I'm not keeping up anymore). So it looks like a refurbished version of Picasa. I understand why someone would like to use it, but I also know why neither me nor many of my friends will ever use it: since we're forced to use Google services almost everywhere, every instance when we don't is a small win. For a growing number of people reducing dependency on Google is of paramount importance.
twitch has cut out a new market IMO, it's not directly replacing youtube. i expect different things on twitch -- generally speaking, more boring, unprofessional and unedited content that's focused almost entirely on learning how to play games better and occasional audience interaction.
as for facebook, i have no idea what they should do because i don't know anyone who likes it anymore
Do you mean that Google Photos is a better way for you to share your photos than Facebook?
Kid's parents and relatives are on Facebook. They don't want their crazy liberal lives on display for their parents, aunts and uncles. As of now Facebook primarily serves as a messenger when one forgets or loses contact information.
In America, Facebook is uncool, Instagram is cool. Reminds me of the days Facebook was cool. Warning, my mom has an Instagram account.
YouTube's video recommendations are much better for me - and even then, they have a very low hit rate. The difference is that I see a dozen of them in the sidebar, instead of one at a time, they are unobtrusive, and they don't autoplay.
If Facebook made a YouTube clone, that would be great for users. They aren't, though - Facebook Video is delivering an objectively worse user experience.
It should stick to baby's first steps videos.
If I see a facebook link, there are many problems:
- I don't know if it's a video
- I don't know if I'll see a login page or if I'll get to the content
- I don't know if the content is viewable by me because of privacy settings
And then this works the other way - why should I share a video on facebook when I can't tell if my recipient will be able to see the video? I don't know if they'll get a login prompt. I don't know if they have the permissions to see the video.
All this friction doesn't exist with youtube, or at least is extremely minimal.
And a small 10s commercial on a YouTube video is a small price to put up with in comparison to the rest of the shit that comes with being in the Facebook ecosystem.
Only reason I still have an account is to be in touch with some high school friends and that's something I barely do these days.
More like "I see a youtube video and click it, I get a 10s commercial"
Like sure Gmail has its problems, but ultimately it is an excellent web based email system that's hard to beat because it's a great product.
Youtube's main strength seems to be primarily its first mover advantage, and the fact that building a video hosting site is a rather costly venture.
Neither of those are a very defensive moat against competitors like Amazon and Facebook