App Advice

>>2795631
Regarding the deletion of irrelevant videos, I know some can imagine this not working
But I imagine it working well, as long as viewers are informed of the temporary nature of content

Between the time of creation / deletion, if a viewer wants to save a certain piece of content it's their responsibility
(4chan, Twitch, Snapchat, etc)

You would press a button to download a particular vid / pic, but the download occurs at the end of the lifespan of that piece of content
(So no revenue is lost)

Don't waste your time.

>>2795891
>What would you suggest? (Other than giving up)

do you have anything more constructive to add?

or maybe a reason why you think its a waste of time

>>2796010
You have absolutely no idea of the scale of Youtube.

And then you are trying to create a Youtube Competitor which doesn't even store content permanently?
50% of a youtubers revenue comes from old videos which are still getting views, that revenue would be missing from your app.

And It seems like you also don't know shit about how hard it actually is to monetize content which uses up so much bandwidth. Simply putting Google Ads everywhere won't generate enough revenue to pay for the servers, atleast if you want to offer 60fps 1080p which you should if you want to compete with youtube.
And even if you managed to develop some high efficient storage compression technology or video codec, you would still be using ads from a third party. You can't use Google Ads while trying to compete with a Google Service.

And even if you somehow manage to solve all of the problems I just mentioned above, just try to migrate BILLIONS of users to your plattform, try it. Higher payments for content creators won't magicly move such a huge userbase to your app.

>>2796595
>You have absolutely no idea of the scale of Youtube.

yeah I do actually, I have spent a large amount of time reading about just how massive it is


>which doesn't even store content permanently?

you say that like it's a bad thing
you've clearly ignored the several times I've mentioned that only content that nobody cares about would be removed
(which is inevitable with topical content)


>50% of a youtubers revenue comes from old videos which are still getting views,

citation needed
also, define old? of course a topic can still be relevant a couple months down the line

even if this was true, it would be coming from 'evergreen' videos; the ones that are always relevant to users
it certainly wouldn't be coming from long outdated content

I'll give you an example of a popular YouTuber who deals with topical content, Philip Defranco

>41,590,200 views in last 30 days
>20 videos in last 30 days
>those videos avg 1.4 - 2 million views
>that means ~30 of his 41.5 million views in the last month, come from videos made in the last month
>75% of his revenue comes from videos made in the last month,

it would be reasonable to assume that the other 25% comes from 2-4 month old videos primarily


>don't know shit about how hard it actually is to monetize content

you're doing a poor job making it seem more difficult than it really is
Google isn't the sole provider of online ads, so I don't know why you're implying that

>>2796595
>60fps 1080p which you should if you want to compete with youtube.

very few people give a shit about frame rate unless it's noticeably low
but yeah 1080/1440p is reasonable

>you would still be using ads from a third party.

says who? lol
Facebook made their own ad network, plus there are other ones

>just try to migrate BILLIONS of users to your plattform,

that's not the scope of the platform, just like Vine managed to carve out a large audience, so would this app
the only reason Vine wasn't financially successful
was because of the 6 second length of videos -
nobody would watch ads that are as long / longer than the videos themselves

the point of this app would be to get an acquisition, from one of Google's many competitors,
not necessarily survive by myself long term