Why should there be 100x more? Video is not optimal for lots of information. It's not interactive or easy to cite and reference. It is bandwidth intense and typically has a lower information density per byte than text has.
There are plenty of places for video, but I am not so sure we need more of it. I'd say the tendency to put more content into video format is an overall negative trend.
Whether some info is in video format is irrelevant.
The fact is, the only platform for video, right now, which can work is youtube. If you host your own video instead, it both has a high cost, and low rate of returns.
If cloudflare can make hosting your own video more cost effective, it is a plus for the internet. I don't want youtube to be so dominant that they can start doing things like censoring and curating.
My comment was about them asserting there should be 100x the video content. Why should there be? It's a pretty horrible way to share information, in all but a few situations.
> No, to be clear, if you add up all the companies using all the CDNs you mention you only get to about 1,000 that are doing so at any meaningful and interesting scale. That's a shame. There should be 100x that. That's what we want to enable.
Emphasis mine.
That's exactly what it looks like to me, more so when I look at it in context with the rest of the comment they made?
And he's very clear there should be 100x more companies making video content. My contention is that video is a horrible way, usually, to convey information. More companies means more video. That's a pretty horrible idea, actually.
Video is, except for a few areas, a horrible way to impart information. The only 'good' thing about video is that you can embed unskippable ads.
The 1,000 was quantified as "1,000 that are doing so at any meaningful and interesting scale."
With no indication for what "meaningful and interesting scale" actually means. I even asked what the criteria was for "meaningful and interesting scale" was. I received no "meaningful or interesting" response. However I was downvoted several times.
I got a downvote for asserting that it was a horrible idea and that they'd suggested we needed 100x that. So, I quoted their post in my next reply.
Maybe someone has vested invested in online video content?
It really is a horrible way to communicate most of the time. It has uses, don't get me wrong. I don't see it having 100,000 useful uses, however. Every news site will be nothing but a text blurb and a video, it'll be video all the way down. It's a horrible idea.
That's what communication is. Even a movie is sharing information. Even a music video is sharing information. The whole Internet is sharing information. Some of it has less value than the rest, but it is still information.
> It's a pretty horrible way to share information, in all but a few situations.
Those few situations are probably 80% of internet traffic :)
> That's what communication is. Even a movie is sharing information. Even a music video is sharing information. The whole Internet is sharing information. Some of it has less value than the rest, but it is still information.
Technically true, practically meaningless. If I want to see Star Wars I probably want a nice 4k video, not the ASCII 80x20 version of it.
If you have your own blog and want to provide a video, your best bet currently is to just use youtube. Many would probably prefer not using their service but providing your own streaming is just too complex.
There are plenty of places for video, but I am not so sure we need more of it. I'd say the tendency to put more content into video format is an overall negative trend.