Video is Coming to Reddit(redditblog.com)
redditblog.com
Video is Coming to Reddit
https://redditblog.com/2017/08/17/video-is-coming-to-reddit/
118 comments
It seems inevitable that there will be pre-roll ads, just like YouTube.
[deleted]
> I don't get what they're plan is.
"This launch is a giant step forward in our efforts to bring rich content to Reddit, following last year’s release of native image hosting and our introduction of native video ads earlier this year."
Which means having to watch a 30 second ad before a 15second video clip.
"This launch is a giant step forward in our efforts to bring rich content to Reddit, following last year’s release of native image hosting and our introduction of native video ads earlier this year."
Which means having to watch a 30 second ad before a 15second video clip.
Looks like i'll have to remove reddit from whitelisted sites on my ad-blocker. Sigh.
Why? They're hosting content you want to see? Can't you just watch their ads?
Some people consider ads immoral and predatory. If we're lucky enough to know how insidious they are, and have the means to block them, we should.
Some of us just genuinely hate autoplay ads.
Yeah I mean who likes them? But if I like the content on a site, I'll watch them. Who knows, maybe I will see something I want to buy.
reddit is the only site that i have white listed because the ads on it aren't obtrusive. If i have to watch a 30 second ad for a 15 second video, i personally find it annoying and obtrusive. I'll gladly donate to reddit via other means to show my support.
Reddit gold opts you out of all ads, not that there are any ads on videos now.
What moral objection are you planning to use to avoid paying for Reddit Gold?
Who said i'm avoiding it? When reddit starts to roll out video ads, i'll buy reddit gold and use ad-blocker at the same time.
I just start blacklisting sites with those tbh. Just refuse to use them altogether. No content is worth the annoyance.
Also another giant step away from Imgur, who has a very simple YouTube-to-hosted-GIF meme maker.
"Which means having to watch a 30 second ad before a 15second video clip."
Hopefully you'll be able to just use youtube-dl or a similar app to download the video and skip the ads, just as you can for videos that are on youtube.
Hopefully you'll be able to just use youtube-dl or a similar app to download the video and skip the ads, just as you can for videos that are on youtube.
Even simpler, Ad Block Plus or UBlock Origin block adverts on YouTube. I'm not sure which it is because I've got both, but I definitely notice the annoying difference when I watch YouTube on another browser!
They both do. I'm not sure why you would use them both, though.
uBlock Origin definitely does. I thought there might have been a downside to using multiple adblockers...is that not the case?
I've never noticed a problem using both.
Yeah a good thing for reddit that users get bombarded with heavy Youtube and Imgur ads?
If Youtube and especially small company Imgur can profit this way, so can reddit.
And seeing as reddit has so few avenues to monetize users, letting Google and Imgur mop up the vast majority of link ad revenue seems very silly.
If Youtube and especially small company Imgur can profit this way, so can reddit.
And seeing as reddit has so few avenues to monetize users, letting Google and Imgur mop up the vast majority of link ad revenue seems very silly.
I think it's pretty simple and I always wondered why they didn't do it sooner. Reddit is already one of the most popular sites on the Internet - but since it was just an aggregator it constantly took users off their site. Now they're owning more and more of the content and keeping users there longer. Sure, video is expensive, but now they have a much bigger revenue opportunity. They can't monetize videos they don't host.
> Sure, video is expensive, but now they have a much bigger revenue opportunity. They can't monetize videos they don't host.
I totally see your point but shouldn't they monetize what they have now before go on to tackle other revenue venture?
Or is it better to tackle all possible revenue venture at the same time?
I feel like it's stretches them thin no?
I totally see your point but shouldn't they monetize what they have now before go on to tackle other revenue venture?
Or is it better to tackle all possible revenue venture at the same time?
I feel like it's stretches them thin no?
They will be able to say they decreased their outbound user metric by X% and can report that to their investors to prove growth.
This is why I hate the business side of business.
Especially in startup, it seems like they're always looking for way to get their investor to invest more. There are many cases where I thought it being so shady.
I acknowledge business people and what they do but there are things in the this industry where it's just not for me.
Especially in startup, it seems like they're always looking for way to get their investor to invest more. There are many cases where I thought it being so shady.
I acknowledge business people and what they do but there are things in the this industry where it's just not for me.
Users might feel like adding a monetizing strategy to existing "free" is Reddit selling out. Whereas if you just add a "new" feature and monetize that, people are less likely to rebel
Yes, well subreddits are starting to be hostile to reddits own image service getting to the point that the service is banned on some of them.
I thought that their own image service would bring back missed revenue from imgur (which it has appeared to do since it has caught on). Unfortunately to do this they designed it to disallow direct image links (and the reason that it is banned).
I thought that their own image service would bring back missed revenue from imgur (which it has appeared to do since it has caught on). Unfortunately to do this they designed it to disallow direct image links (and the reason that it is banned).
Direct links have never been disallowed, either by design or policy, so not sure where you're getting that.
Reddit, by default, does practically everything in its power it can to stop you from getting the direct link to the reddit-hosted image.
Not to mention it's just downright slower than imgur.
Although, it's not like imgur is without fault nowadays, in their continued efforts to foster their own (IMO, awful) community off of the back of another (Reddit), it is nigh-on impossible to go directly to an image on the mobile site now - instead you get forced back to their gallery-style page full of 'related content', which only serves to slow the loading of the shit I actually want to see.
Not to mention it's just downright slower than imgur.
Although, it's not like imgur is without fault nowadays, in their continued efforts to foster their own (IMO, awful) community off of the back of another (Reddit), it is nigh-on impossible to go directly to an image on the mobile site now - instead you get forced back to their gallery-style page full of 'related content', which only serves to slow the loading of the shit I actually want to see.
> I think it's pretty simple and I always wondered why they didn't do it sooner. Reddit is already one of the most popular sites on the Internet - but since it was just an aggregator it constantly took users off their site. Now they're owning more and more of the content and keeping users there longer. Sure, video is expensive, but now they have a much bigger revenue opportunity. They can't monetize videos they don't host.
They are going to start getting hit with more and more DMCAs, etc. The compliance cost for video and/or audio goes up alot in my experience. Also more likely to be sued (a la Youtube).
For the most part, still pictures, its rare to get any kind of DMCA notice and you basically never get sued.
They are going to start getting hit with more and more DMCAs, etc. The compliance cost for video and/or audio goes up alot in my experience. Also more likely to be sued (a la Youtube).
For the most part, still pictures, its rare to get any kind of DMCA notice and you basically never get sued.
I don't think people leave their site for videos, usually I just open in new window and return to reddit when i'm done
If, as you wrote, you "return to reddit" when you are done, doesn't that kind of imply that you left reddit to watch the video?
[deleted]
> > especially those who capture videos on their phones
I guess this is a problem with the in-house Reddit app. There are many problems which can, and should be, solved on the frontend. This is one of them.
> I don't get what they're plan is.
Exactly, they could just add gfycat/imgur support to the app (which is what Sync already does).
> losing money
They will also have to deal with DCMA (historically, the content hosts have), which means hiring people to vet false claims. Not to mention that redditors are ferocious when it comes to false claims and 'censorship.' This is a PR nightmare waiting to happen.
I guess this is a problem with the in-house Reddit app. There are many problems which can, and should be, solved on the frontend. This is one of them.
> I don't get what they're plan is.
Exactly, they could just add gfycat/imgur support to the app (which is what Sync already does).
> losing money
They will also have to deal with DCMA (historically, the content hosts have), which means hiring people to vet false claims. Not to mention that redditors are ferocious when it comes to false claims and 'censorship.' This is a PR nightmare waiting to happen.
> They will also have to deal with DCMA (historically, the content hosts have), which means hiring people to vet false claims.
No, it doesn't. You can just honor any facially-valid notice and give the user the opportunity for counter-notice, and (if you care about liability to users, which you probably don't need to) then also honor any facially-valid counter-notice.
The DMCA safe harbor process is designed specifically so that content hosts have no need to care about whether a claim is true or false if they follow it.
No, it doesn't. You can just honor any facially-valid notice and give the user the opportunity for counter-notice, and (if you care about liability to users, which you probably don't need to) then also honor any facially-valid counter-notice.
The DMCA safe harbor process is designed specifically so that content hosts have no need to care about whether a claim is true or false if they follow it.
You also need to ban users with multiple infringements and if the problem gets large enough, implement an automated detection system. YouTube didn't build ContentID out of the kindness of their heart.
> YouTube didn't build ContentID out of the kindness of their heart.
It built it to settle a lawsuit that was on appeal that it kept winning (at summary judgement, twice) against Viacom, largely because YouTube’s long term goals were better served by friendly relations with big copyright holders.
It built it to settle a lawsuit that was on appeal that it kept winning (at summary judgement, twice) against Viacom, largely because YouTube’s long term goals were better served by friendly relations with big copyright holders.
> In addition, to be eligible for any of the limitations, a service provider must meet two overall conditions: (1) [...] and (2) it must accommodate and not interfere with “standard technical measures.” (Section 512(i)). “Standard technical measures” are defined as measures that copyright owners use to identify or protect copyrighted works, that have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair and voluntary multi-industry process, are available to anyone on reasonable nondiscriminatory terms, and do not impose substantial costs or burdens on service providers.
https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
That's not a requirement to implement their own detection measures, TS a requirement not to obstruct copyright owners detection measures.
The Reddit userbase would demand it, is my point.
>> "How does a company... plan to make more?"
By charging a fifteen dollar CPM for ads shown on their videos.
By charging a fifteen dollar CPM for ads shown on their videos.
What is the end game for Reddit? Control of the videos so they can sell ads, right?
Does the benefit redditors? No.
Based on the testing so far the mobile player is not ready for prime time nor is the backend video infrastructure. Videos lag horribly and spin sometimes forever .. as if the connection was broken.
Does the benefit redditors? No.
Based on the testing so far the mobile player is not ready for prime time nor is the backend video infrastructure. Videos lag horribly and spin sometimes forever .. as if the connection was broken.
Definitely control of videos so they can sell ads, but also an effort to cultivate a captive ecosystem and reduce reliance on outside sites. These largely circle back to 'sell ads', but it's too drastic to suggest that it doesn't benefit the community. It, however, does continue the process of changing its character.
Captive content ecosystems, despite their widely-recognized drawbacks, aren't devoid of engagement. Vine was a captive content ecosystem whose attributes resulted in many creative works; Snapchat and its Facebook-run clones -- most notably the Stories inside Instagram -- are another, where the content is made and consumed by the official app and never escapes out onto the public web. As an extreme example, Hulu is a captive content ecosystem where all the content happens to be professionally produced.
Captive content ecosystems are excellent places to sell ads, because you track the user's content consumption habits, and control the client such that they can't easily avoid the ads using technical means.
Captive content ecosystems, despite their widely-recognized drawbacks, aren't devoid of engagement. Vine was a captive content ecosystem whose attributes resulted in many creative works; Snapchat and its Facebook-run clones -- most notably the Stories inside Instagram -- are another, where the content is made and consumed by the official app and never escapes out onto the public web. As an extreme example, Hulu is a captive content ecosystem where all the content happens to be professionally produced.
Captive content ecosystems are excellent places to sell ads, because you track the user's content consumption habits, and control the client such that they can't easily avoid the ads using technical means.
How long until, like Twitter, reddit puts the bulk of its content behind a login? It's transforming itself into another walled garden like everything else, because that's the way to get paid.
Video playback is hard. Does Reddit have the technical resources to make this work? Only a handful of companies have pulled it off.
Other than YouTube are there any web video players that are ready for prime time? Facebook's player is as much of a nightmare of usability as would be expected from the rest of their site, it's unusable for me on both an iPhone 6s in their native app and on the web. Netflix does a good job in their apps but I haven't used their web player in years, is it any good?
News sites seem to love auto-playing videos that don't actually play but still follow the visitor through the page. If the videos do play I can look forward to my laptop fans ('14 RMBP) immediately kicking into high gear. Is this the experience I can look forward to on Reddit?
Other than YouTube are there any web video players that are ready for prime time? Facebook's player is as much of a nightmare of usability as would be expected from the rest of their site, it's unusable for me on both an iPhone 6s in their native app and on the web. Netflix does a good job in their apps but I haven't used their web player in years, is it any good?
News sites seem to love auto-playing videos that don't actually play but still follow the visitor through the page. If the videos do play I can look forward to my laptop fans ('14 RMBP) immediately kicking into high gear. Is this the experience I can look forward to on Reddit?
Video playback is not hard. If you are any good at UI/UX, you can make a great video player with HTML5.
DRM is hard (it's really an impossible pipe dream, but that's another conversation). Getting any sort of "DRM" to work in a browser with a good UI/UX is difficult, and most of the huge media providers (HBO, Vudu, etc.) are still using outdated, buggy, sluggish flash-based methods. The only decent video player using "DRM" that I know of is Netflix, which still has arbitrary limitations, like 720p video.
DRM is hard (it's really an impossible pipe dream, but that's another conversation). Getting any sort of "DRM" to work in a browser with a good UI/UX is difficult, and most of the huge media providers (HBO, Vudu, etc.) are still using outdated, buggy, sluggish flash-based methods. The only decent video player using "DRM" that I know of is Netflix, which still has arbitrary limitations, like 720p video.
The problem is most people aren't good at UI/UX but you have a good point. Does Reddit care about DRM in their videos? What about the CDN component? What about encoding support?
I would assume Reddit would not want any DRM.
I can't speak to what they would use for a CDN.
Decoding support in HTML5 is pretty good (except for HEVC). The only things that Reddit would need to care about are file size and audio. It seems likely that Reddit would reject audio, or categorize videos that have it, so it could give fair warning.
I can't speak to what they would use for a CDN.
Decoding support in HTML5 is pretty good (except for HEVC). The only things that Reddit would need to care about are file size and audio. It seems likely that Reddit would reject audio, or categorize videos that have it, so it could give fair warning.
The Netflix web player is good. I use it regularly.
Some other good web video players:
- Vimeo - Hulu
HBO Now's web player is pretty good, tho not great. They definitely seem to have a hard time with their backend some times (e.g. around season premieres of Game of Thrones).
In general tho, video playback is just the latest spiritual incarnation of popup ads.
Some other good web video players:
- Vimeo - Hulu
HBO Now's web player is pretty good, tho not great. They definitely seem to have a hard time with their backend some times (e.g. around season premieres of Game of Thrones).
In general tho, video playback is just the latest spiritual incarnation of popup ads.
Fair enough, I don't consume Hulu, Netflix or HBO through their web players so I am not familiar with them. Their apps are serviceable although I wish the player was determined by my platform rather than the app. I never really know what will happen when I push the "back" button on my streaming box.
> HBO Now's web player is pretty good
No. It is not.
In my experience, video stutters and splits even in Windows with 2 rx480s, and refuses to work in GNU/Linux.
Netflix's web player is great, except that it limits you to 720p.
No. It is not.
In my experience, video stutters and splits even in Windows with 2 rx480s, and refuses to work in GNU/Linux.
Netflix's web player is great, except that it limits you to 720p.
I don't understand why it's so hard, you can just use the HTML5 <video> tag and then bam, you've got a polished and bug-free video player.
You're kidding right? What about the CDN? Does anyone actually use a plain html5 <video> tag for playback? Is that what Facebook and news sites like NYT and CNN are using? Is that what Reddit will use?
Outside Youtube I can't think of a single video player I would even call usable, forget polished.
Outside Youtube I can't think of a single video player I would even call usable, forget polished.
It's nowhere near that simple. I wrote a video player which only had to support three clients (Win7+IE, Win7+Chrome, and iPad Safari) and it still took me weeks to get it working right. Here's a whole post I wrote about the transcoding settings alone: http://www.linestarve.com/blog/post/rendering-html5-video-wi...
None of the videos loaded for me on Chrome with Ublock and privacybadger.
Worked with just Chrome and uBlock.
[deleted](1)
Sure as hell benefits Reddit. Ads are their business and main priority, users come second.
Youtube does not yet make money. This is such a windmillfight, I just don't understand why Reddit thinks adding a cost-sink will help.
With images, it made sense -- Imgur was trying to become Reddit and hosting was a means of shoring up defense against that.
No one wants reddit video. Reddit is an aggregator whose core strength is discovery; Youtube cannot so easily become Reddit like Imgur could.
With images, it made sense -- Imgur was trying to become Reddit and hosting was a means of shoring up defense against that.
No one wants reddit video. Reddit is an aggregator whose core strength is discovery; Youtube cannot so easily become Reddit like Imgur could.
> Reddit is an aggregator whose core strength is discovery
Yeah, at some point they should reconsider their slogan "the front page of the internet" given their seeming desire to become an isolated walled garden.
Yeah, at some point they should reconsider their slogan "the front page of the internet" given their seeming desire to become an isolated walled garden.
Ctrl-F "porn"... nothing. Seems like the most obvious application and they completely ignore it.
this will only lead people to steal content from other websites so they can get "karma"
also, reddit tracks every outbound click with a unique identifier -- be sure to block all reddit tracking
also, reddit tracks every outbound click with a unique identifier -- be sure to block all reddit tracking
You can turn that off in prefs -> privacy options
which means you're logged in and they're tracking your browsing activity anyway
Is the exit plan now to tack reddit with so much bullshit they can sell it to anyone who wants a social bookmarking site?
I've only encountered it a few times but it seems everyone dislikes it. The player is pretty bad. Then again, Reddit jumped the shark some time ago.
I ignore any link to v.reddit. the player and experience is garbage. And it's not a problem you can just solve because you want to, there are plenty of dedicated web video companies that do it with varying competence from average to badly (vimeo, dailymotion).
When it works at all it's been fine for me, but sometimes I just get a black box
[deleted]
Just trying to look at images with their built-in image hosting is not the greatest experience - two clicks to view the original image, compared to one with other image hosts (yeah, I know, RES; but I browse on mobile too). Combine this with the highly frequent "we're overloaded" messages, and I'm not really looking forward to their attempt at hosting videos as well.
Plus the fact that on desktop, you can't pull to scale the i.reddit.com hosted images like you can with the imgur hosted ones, or if you can, you can do it on the front page, but not the comments for whatever silly reason.
A couple months ago I found that Reddit submissions using Reddit's native image hosting, a year after its implementation, surpassed those of its main competitor, Imgur (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14595212)
I'm not entirely sure the same will happen with video. Not only are the videos typically posted on Reddit's largest video subreddits are from the YouTube community (and intended for the YouTube community), the video player beta is apparently a worse user experience than YouTube. (in contrast with images, where the competitor was the one with the worse user experience)
And that's not even getting into the logistical concerns. Hosting images is much, much easier than video, as video has much higher bandwidth/storage requirements AND Reddit will have to frequently remove pirated/NSFW videos for Safe Harbor protection/advertiser friendliness, which is a challenge even Google has not been able to solve at scale.
I'm not entirely sure the same will happen with video. Not only are the videos typically posted on Reddit's largest video subreddits are from the YouTube community (and intended for the YouTube community), the video player beta is apparently a worse user experience than YouTube. (in contrast with images, where the competitor was the one with the worse user experience)
And that's not even getting into the logistical concerns. Hosting images is much, much easier than video, as video has much higher bandwidth/storage requirements AND Reddit will have to frequently remove pirated/NSFW videos for Safe Harbor protection/advertiser friendliness, which is a challenge even Google has not been able to solve at scale.
Image hosting is easy, if you don't care about losing money. As long as you provide direct links to images, you're better than everybody else.
Video hosting? You need a good player (nothing will ever top YouTube's) and a good CDN. That's a tough nut to crack. Especially for a company with no money.
Video hosting? You need a good player (nothing will ever top YouTube's) and a good CDN. That's a tough nut to crack. Especially for a company with no money.
> nothing will ever top YouTube's
A video player that doesn't make me wait a long time before going to full resolution,or that lets me select full resolution when I'll not on desktop, would be a huge plus for me.
In the last week goon to YouTube's site on mobile to watch videos has often been broken. Turning off my adblocker doesn't fix it. Going to the desktop site sometimes fixes it. Very off-putting.
And you know what I would kill for? A display of how long a video is before I play it. And maybe an indication of if it has sound.
I'll point out I don't use any apps and even on mobile I use the desktop site.
But YouTube seems to be getting slowly worse, which doesn't really surprise me. Imgur had DEFINITELY gotten WAY worse than even a year or so ago.
Good luck to Reddit. This may be a serious improvement.
A video player that doesn't make me wait a long time before going to full resolution,or that lets me select full resolution when I'll not on desktop, would be a huge plus for me.
In the last week goon to YouTube's site on mobile to watch videos has often been broken. Turning off my adblocker doesn't fix it. Going to the desktop site sometimes fixes it. Very off-putting.
And you know what I would kill for? A display of how long a video is before I play it. And maybe an indication of if it has sound.
I'll point out I don't use any apps and even on mobile I use the desktop site.
But YouTube seems to be getting slowly worse, which doesn't really surprise me. Imgur had DEFINITELY gotten WAY worse than even a year or so ago.
Good luck to Reddit. This may be a serious improvement.
> And you know what I would kill for? A display of how long a video is before I play it
Every youtube video thumbnail has that in the lower right corner.
Every youtube video thumbnail has that in the lower right corner.
> Imgur had DEFINITELY gotten WAY worse than even a year or so ago
There is vicious cycle with all image hosting services and Imgur(and Photobucket) has reached the last step:
1. Notice all other services are filled with ads and full of bloat
2. Create new, free and very simple image uploading site
3. Site gains popularity
4. Operating costs go through the roof
5. Try to monetize by adding ads or move to paid accounts
6. goto 1
There is vicious cycle with all image hosting services and Imgur(and Photobucket) has reached the last step:
1. Notice all other services are filled with ads and full of bloat
2. Create new, free and very simple image uploading site
3. Site gains popularity
4. Operating costs go through the roof
5. Try to monetize by adding ads or move to paid accounts
6. goto 1
> Especially for a company with no money.
Reddit doesn't exactly have "no money": https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/31/reddit-just-raised-a-new-r...
Reddit doesn't exactly have "no money": https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/31/reddit-just-raised-a-new-r...
The proliferation of HTML5 video support in browsers has made the player massively less of a concern than it used to be. I recently led a move of my employer's video hosting (many TBs worth of video) from a third-party platform to an in-house solution and it was quite a lot simpler than one might expect.
Video is super expensive in terms of bandwidth, but the technical pipeline for ingesting, transcoding, delivering, and presenting it is extremely simple now.
Video is super expensive in terms of bandwidth, but the technical pipeline for ingesting, transcoding, delivering, and presenting it is extremely simple now.
>extremely simple
Yet nearly every time I use a player that isn't YouTube's it stinks. Cursor doesn't disappear. Inconsistent interaction model (does double click move in/out of full screen? Do the arrow keys work? Does 'm' mute? Etc.)
It's not just about the ability to play a video, you have to get the UX right as well, and most don't.
Yet nearly every time I use a player that isn't YouTube's it stinks. Cursor doesn't disappear. Inconsistent interaction model (does double click move in/out of full screen? Do the arrow keys work? Does 'm' mute? Etc.)
It's not just about the ability to play a video, you have to get the UX right as well, and most don't.
Not just the UX, the performance as well: there are few things more infuriating than going to pause an autoplaying video, but you can't, because it slows down scrolling on the whole web page. Then you finally get your mouse over it and if you're unlucky enough that the controls have disappeared you've got to wait for whatever 1 sec+ latency for them to re-appear.
Then you've got to click them - an action once again, slave to huge amounts of latency provided it even works the first time.
Then once it's paused (if it had started playing), you've just got to hope that it won't just continue loading the rest of the video in the background.
Definitely. Performance at scale is tough to get right here.
At scale? You only have one player.
Yeah, fair enough. Forgot we were talking specifically about the player here.
On the web the only usable player I interact with is YouTube. No other site has video that I would describe as watchable.
Reddit doesn't universally prohibit NSFW content, and already has to remove links to it or assure that it is properly flagged, depending on the particular sub, so I don't think the NSFW side really changes things.
In the copyright side, hosting vs. linking has both similar risks and similar DMCA protections around user generated content, so while they'll probably have a higher volume of complaints when they are both the link venue and the source host, I don't think that fundamentally changes anything, either.
In the copyright side, hosting vs. linking has both similar risks and similar DMCA protections around user generated content, so while they'll probably have a higher volume of complaints when they are both the link venue and the source host, I don't think that fundamentally changes anything, either.
[deleted]
I think it's obvious why they're doing this - accessibility. In moving r/all to r/popular, image hosting, removing default subs, and now this, they're trying to cater to more people.
Four years ago I joined reddit, tried it out for about 2 hours, and quit. I couldn't get past the (admittedly small) learning curve (especially acronyms: ITT, OP, TIL, etc). Two years ago I joined it for real after putting in an hour to learn what everything was.
Reddit is an amazing site, it's just kind of hard to get into it. By hosting their own video, they make it easier for new users.
Four years ago I joined reddit, tried it out for about 2 hours, and quit. I couldn't get past the (admittedly small) learning curve (especially acronyms: ITT, OP, TIL, etc). Two years ago I joined it for real after putting in an hour to learn what everything was.
Reddit is an amazing site, it's just kind of hard to get into it. By hosting their own video, they make it easier for new users.
How does an embedded YouTube video (the status quo) make the Reddit experience less accessible for new users? Chances are, reddit's implementation will be significantly worse than embedded YouTube videos. If anything will create confusion for new users, it's having both YouTube embeds and Reddit videos on the same page. Nobody who is new to Reddit is unfamiliar with the YouTube player, but is definitely unfamiliar with any custom Reddit player.
EDIT: Point taken, I can see how this makes it easier for users to upload content to Reddit (especially original content, e.g. from a phone camera roll) without jumping through YouTube hoops.
EDIT: Point taken, I can see how this makes it easier for users to upload content to Reddit (especially original content, e.g. from a phone camera roll) without jumping through YouTube hoops.
You know I didn't even consider upload. A few years ago I remember going trough tons of hoops getting integrations setup so I could post to YouTube from my WiiU and PS4. It was a huge pain.
If Reddit can make video uploading easier for people without a YouTube account or who forgot their password or don't want to visit 3 sites to get it done.
If Reddit can make video uploading easier for people without a YouTube account or who forgot their password or don't want to visit 3 sites to get it done.
>especially acronyms: ITT, OP, TIL, etc
None of those originated or where even popularized by reddit AFAIK...
None of those originated or where even popularized by reddit AFAIK...
[deleted]
Perhaps not, but they are, of course, extremely common there.
As an aside, I do believe the acronym ELI5 was coined and popularized on reddit (though the phrase itself did not originate there).
As an aside, I do believe the acronym ELI5 was coined and popularized on reddit (though the phrase itself did not originate there).
I'm just happy to see youtube and facebook get some video competition.
why did i land on the fullscreen background pattern?
I still prefer clicking on an embedded imgur link rather than their own reddit image hosting version.
Especially on mobile. Every imgur image displays properly on my phone. Every time I click on an i.reddit image, it's 1000px wide so to see the entire thing I have to scroll vertically and horizontally.
I've just stopped clicking on any image links from i.reddit.
I've just stopped clicking on any image links from i.reddit.
Slightly OT: I started to blocked HN at daytime recently. Great impact on my productivity and a side effect was...
- I visit Reddit more often (which is unblocked)
- Reddit is surprisngly not that addictive; you skim it for few minutes and leave again
- AND this is the most important thing: Reddit is sometimes so funny, the posts and especially the top voted comments that I am cracking up every time, almost at the point of crying. After Reddit I am always in a very good mood.
- I visit Reddit more often (which is unblocked)
- Reddit is surprisngly not that addictive; you skim it for few minutes and leave again
- AND this is the most important thing: Reddit is sometimes so funny, the posts and especially the top voted comments that I am cracking up every time, almost at the point of crying. After Reddit I am always in a very good mood.
Content uploaded to youtube/imgur and embedded in reddit has the avantage, that you actually serve two communities at once with the (tiny) possibility of going viral in both. As a content creator I'd prefer that. Moreover users can discover older content easier in youtube with the stream of recommendations of similar content.
If your goal is to reach the largest audience it doesn't make sense to me to only hide it in reddit.
If your goal is to reach the largest audience it doesn't make sense to me to only hide it in reddit.
pivot to video without knowing why.
because what you really want is a 4k view of the dumpster fire rather than just reading about it.
because what you really want is a 4k view of the dumpster fire rather than just reading about it.
I think Reddit should focus on short videos first. A middle term between a gif and a youtube video that would be perfect on any smartphone. Video is very expensive and there are very few examples of companies that profit by hosting without having a pay subscription system. In fact, every big video platform is trying to make easier for content creators profit from their creations. Reddit doesn't have any idea how to make money now, and will not be able to help others. Make great content with regularity is expensive.
They should only give the option to people who wish to host sporadic content in a simpler way, especially using smatphone. But without focusing on being the first choice for content creators until they have a great strategy to help them make money.
They should only give the option to people who wish to host sporadic content in a simpler way, especially using smatphone. But without focusing on being the first choice for content creators until they have a great strategy to help them make money.
I've never heard anyone complain that copying a URL is too onerous.
I don't get what they're plan is. How does a company that is currently losing money plan to make more and be a sustainable enterprise by adding features that only increase their costs? Video uses a lot of bandwidth. Especially compared everything they've done so far (i.e. all text).
They had a good thing going with the mooching off free hosting on YouTube and Imgur. Why kill that? All I see them gaining are a bit more details on how many times someone played a video. And you could probably do that with some custom JS wrapping the YouTube player (guessing here ... not sure how that works in practice).