Temporary Content

because you haven't made it yet.

To clarify, this is the kind of content the platform would revolve around:


News
Local, National, Global)
Politics
Business/Finance
Environmental

Entertainment
Gossip, Movie, Music, Games
Movie reviews / trailers
Sports

Technology
Phones, Computers, Software,

Scientific Developments

Fashion/Lifestyle

Travel

Health / Medical Advancements

Storage isn't as much of a cost as you believe it to be.

>>2482954
yeah, this feels like so obvious an idea, that I'm surprised nobody has done it yet

>>2482979
I've read that YouTube's primary costs are storage / networking
Why else haven't they been making a profit until recently?

If you know something I don't, I'm interested to hear it

>>2482979
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/10/29/how-much-did-it-cost-youtube-to-stream-gangnam-style/#17d8f9583229

>>2482939
>So if videos are pruned from the server once people stop engaging with the content,

when would that be? You can't really draw a red line, and ppl would be angered if they can't find that xyz stuff from some years ago

>that would massively reduce costs
No I don't think so. At least not enough to justify pissing people off. Also, storage is getting cheaper and cheaper, especially ternary,slow storage is following a modified moores' law

>>2483020
But don't let me tell you what's possible and what is not. Interesting thought to be fair.

>>2483053
This could be true if you market it as some long big video host.

I 100% think if you made simple single page app or something and limited the amount of time a video could be hosted and the size you could pull this off. There's downloaders if people are really attached to sub minute videos.

>>2482939
why in the hell would you want do delete content senpai? that makes no sense.

Content is valuable.

> write book
> finally done after all that time
> sell 10.000 copies in 6 months.
> sales dry out, there's the occasional sale every few weeks
> let's burn all the books.

t.tard

>>2483185
The fudders in here are really trying hard.

Upload <1 min video to site. Set time available for video watching.

Because of video scarcity people go to page to watch it. I fucking swear if this idea gets shot down hard here I will make it, screen cap this whole thread, and then fucking post it when I get my first check from it.

>>2483053
>when would that be? You can't really draw a red line, and ppl would be angered if they can't find that xyz stuff from some years ago

This is how it would work
*Video is uploaded to platform, discussing the latest iPhone 8 leaks, for example
*If someone likes the particular video, they can press a button to add it to favourite it
*Eventually, when most of the user engagement has almost stopped (views, comments, shares, likes sharply declining) the video will be selected to be pruned
*When the video is about to be pruned from the servers, it will be downloaded to the devices of those people

As I said anyway, the videos this platform will host will be topical in nature
The sorts of videos people don't go back to watch once they're irrelevant


>No I don't think so. At least not enough to justify pissing people off.

People wouldn't be pissed off because they would be informed of the nature of the site, they wouldn't have any expectation that the video would last forever.
Just like on here, snapchat, or livestreams, people understand that the content isn't intended to be permanent, so it's their own responsibility to save it.

>Also, storage is getting cheaper and cheaper, especially ternary,slow storage is following a modified moores' law

I'm interested to hear about advancements in storage, I'm only a year out of high school, so I have no real knowledge of this
Yes storage is advancing, but the amount of people using these sites is increasing, and the videos are only piling up more and more every day

>search up a movie scene or old video games
>watch video hosted 5 years ago

That's why OP. Also, it's to feed their big AI machine. That is its main purpose.

Nobody realizes how fucked us goyim are once google perfects its AI

>>2483205
Will you be angry if I spin up a prototype of this site in the next couple weeks? I want to make it like snatch chat and have the videos self destruct on certain criteria

>>2483165
I would want most of the content to be short - medium in length

>>2483185
Yes... but when the books are no longer selling enough to justify their spaces on the shelves,
They are removed

It's not really a very good comparison though,


>>2483201
That's also possible, but I wouldn't want that to be the main focus of the platform

>>2483244
Of course YouTube would still exist, that's the platform where that kind of content belongs
Except thats part of the reason why YouTube has such a small profit margin, because of all the content on the site that's unmonetizable

>>2483262
Uhh, I mean I haven't really gone into the full detail of my plans
So if you do make something, it likely won't be competing with my app

So go ahead

>>2483262
other than declining user engagement, what criteria would result in videos being deleted?

>>2483349
I'm thinking time. And perhaps another few metrics. I'm actually looking into getting this up now. Just choosing if I want to host the videos myself or have some offloading. Although if I offload I can't *GUARANTEE* that the files are shredded.

>>2482939
>Why isn't there a temporary video sharing platform?

There's no reason for content creators to take down videos when Youtube is willing to keep them hosted indefinitely for no cost to the creator. Even a small number of ongoing views means more ad revenue for the creator.

>After that, they're just a drain on the server.

Not really. The video isn't using server resources if it's not being viewed. It is just sitting there taking up hard drive space, which is extremely cheap, especially on the level that Google is able to provide.

>>2482939
So basically just >>>/gif/ -tube?

It'll be flooded with porn, rekt shit, movie rips, and jihadi videos for sure. Too risky IMO.

>>2483458
this is never going to work.
You can't even get your "new temp video site" popular.

How do you think you are going to draw in new visitors when you delete your content?

your idea is totally retarded, no one would even want to upload their videos, cause they get deleted anyway.

Unless you already have a few hundred popular sites and streams for visitors, this will never even take off.

Also storage is in rapid evolution, soon you'll be able to store petabytes on devices the size of an usb stick, doing it to "store server capacity" is totally retarded, and I mean ultra retarded.

>>2483020
bandwidth is expensive, storage is not

I have to say I doubt it'll take off unless you have an edge on content. Snapchat and Instagram stories already have the visitor and content creators, it's just an addition.

How do people know when you'll have a certain video/content on?

what you are proposing is a TV channel. content is temporary, you want to make an online TV station with x channels.

>>2483458
are they right about the storage costs being irrelevant? I have no real knowledge of this field, so yeah

>>2482939
I once found a 8 years old video that only had 3 views. It took like 3 minutes before loading. I guess it was well hidden somewhere.

i think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist

>>2483556
If you think so dude. Having a video you can upload that can only be seen by so many people before being deleted has value.

>>2483615
>>2483778
https://www.quora.com/How-much-bandwidth-does-YouTube-consume-daily-and-monthly-and-how-much-does-it-cost

Is the estimate of 150 million annually unrealistic? (For YT in 2015)
Because if so, thats still a significant amount

>>2482939
I like your idea but I don't think it would ever make money because it's no product but a feature. Youtube could implement the basic idea of temporary available videos immediately. for Youtube it'd be like pastebin's "when will your paste expire?"-field.
The same thing happened to snapchat. They only provided a feature.
Your idea is a good one for Youtube but not for a new product. That's my opinion.

>>2483909
The benefit comes from all the content on the platform being temporary, there would be no financial benefit to have a few random videos here and there that delete themselves

>>2483946
okay, i didn't consider that.
you would need to have at least one continuesly flowing main stream of videos, so users don't see a test screen for five minutes. the more i think about it (and read your other posts) it sounds quite cool. i wish you good luck. if you can't code it yourself and don't have much money use crayons, scissor and paper to craft paper prototypes of the ui. build the major scenarios like uploading or watching a video. don't think about the backend yet and don't think about details.
then go to your local college or university and ask for the entrepreneurship class or the startup help center. get in contact with devs and designers and seek for help from the trainers. good luck!

>>2484059
the lifespan of each video would be long initially, but decrease over time as content becomes more numerous

>>2484117
just do it :)

>>2482939
Recently I wanted to share a video with a remote coworker. Did I post online? Hell no, because the video contains sensitive documents. Instead I put it on a network drive in a temp folder. This accomplishes the same function.

>>2483201
>Because it's scarce people will watch it
My asshole 5 mins only
>http://myasshole.net/

>>2483904
check the volume of content they have on youtube especially HD content, and then ask yourself, is 150m anually significant? Will

>>2483848
It doesn't unless you want to start sharing instant child porn or other illegal things. It has no use at all to delete content. NONE.

content is how you make money.

You clearly have no idea how visitors can convert to leads and sales, else you wouldn't be thinking about a "temporary video site"

You clearly also don't have any idea how vistors come onto a site. Else you wouldn't be thinking about a "temporary video site"

long term content creators acumulate followers through time, their old videos need to be accesible .
if youtube was to start following ur plan deleting videos 5-6months old some other platform would take over very easily.

OP I bet you thought you were a genius when you thought of this idea. Ideas are fun to have and can make you feel powerful. But the reason no one has done this is because it is a fucking stupid idea. Better luck next time.

PS You can't FUD a shitty idea, retards.

>>2482939
90% of the shit I watch on Youtube are documentaries and info videos, a lot of which were uploaded years ago. A lot of stuff on Youtube in future years from now will be looked at as a snapshot and portrait of the times it was uploaded in. It is valuable stuff.

That is why.

So, in short, your idea is shit, you are shit, and fuck you for wanting to delete valuable content- just to save a couple shekels. Fucking book burning scumbag. Kill yourself.

>>2482939
I feel like people in this thread are imagining using it just like youtube, but that won't be the case.

If this platform was created it would likely have much quicker content (2 or 3 minutes) and you would scroll through feeds and recommendations. So, rather than subscribe to the creator themselves, you would subscribe to a topic (i.e cooking) and then scroll through lots of different cooking content made by different people.

The lack of permanent content will make it all feel much faster than YouTube. In fact, it'll probably feel like scrolling through a WebM thread

>>2484924

It's called Snapchat