I think the answer is simple. It's a bunch of videographers... they have their own video sites.
If this was a photographers group we'd have our own photo sites. Youtube is fun as is flickr... but when you're really serious about something you need more control and freedom. Can you put ads on your media on youtube? Can you make them higher res? Can you make them downloadable? Youtube is fun for about 90% of the planet, but this group is the 1-10% who needs something more. I find it particularly interesting that youtube makes it impossible for anyone to make any direct money of youtube but youtube. Therefore people are using it purely for marketing purposes. Which is exactly what I see. A tremendous amount of vloggers post at least some videos to youtube in addition to their vlogs. I suspect the future of youtube is as a dumping ground for corporations to promote themselves and serious vloggers increasingly emigrate away from youtube causing a slow dilution of the space. This is if there isn't just an outright backlash. The bottom line is... "the center of the marketplace MUST remain open". Open spaces are where innovation and change happen so there there must remain a balance between open platforms and closed marketplaces. And yes I use the term marketplace openly. These are conversational marketplaces for ideas and media. Just my thoughts. -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 3/4/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Van Dijck" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've always been interested in why young people prefer to post on > > youtube & myspace versus on their own (video)blog (for the comments of > > course!) - in this group we seem to think having your own vlog is much > > superior. > > > > But today I realized: my photos are on flickr, instead of having my > > own instance of some opensource script like Gallery - for the > > community aspect (and the superior functionality), so isn't that the > > same? > > > > Just a thought. > > P > > I would say it's not the same because video is self-containted making > it's relation to it's context either congruent or in conflict. Images > depend on their context for meaning: Other text (at least a heading) > and comments to develop their social meaning. The meaning in video is > usually not dependent on the site, but the effectiveness of expressing > it's meaning is effected by the site. So a generic site like YouTube, > MySpace usually works against the meaning videos have. For instance, > Galacticast videos flower in perspective on the Galacticast site while > lessen their presentation on generic sites. It is why a well done > film seen from a excellent print in a beautiful, clean cinema theatre > is a different experience from it's TV version. > > -- Enric > > > > > -- > > Find 10000s of videoblogs and podcasts at http://mefeedia.com > > my blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ > > my job: http://petervandijck.net > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
