Hacker News Reader

Comment by jes5199 | Hacker News Reader

Youtube used to be a demilitarized zone in the social wars. Every social network uses Youtube as their default video provider, every cell phone OS has a Youtube app as the default video app.

Google saying that Youtube is now, fundamentally, a G+ territory means that social video is no longer something we can take for granted; expect Facebook and Apple to jump ship, and Youtube is left with, what, only the loyal G+ users?

I miss the days when Google, Apple, and Facebook cooperated rather than squabbled. The internet has gotten crappier lately.

View on HN

Facebook isn't so dumb that they haven't seen YouTube as Google's trojan horse for a long time. Facebook has had a video platform since 2007 -- it just hasn't taken off.

> I miss the days when Google, Apple, and Facebook cooperated rather than squabbled.

I don't; competition is good.

If by competition you mean the walled data silos each company builds in order to prevent users from leaving their platform, I would much rather prefer cooperation.

It's funny to think that Google Video didn't take off, and Google had to buy YouTube. Now YouTube is not available for purchase by Facebook. This is interested with the instagram purchase.

You're being downvoted but you're exactly right. As long as Instagram hung out there floating in the breeze, anyone could become a major photo-sharing player, just as Google did by acquiring YouTube.

By purchasing Instagram, Facebook prevented themselves from being edged out in photos the way Google is shouldering them out in video sharing.

I don't agree: Facebook can just make something that's almost exactly like YouTube. Seems like a no-brainer investment for facebook.

But with Instagram, they wanted the name-brand.

Google tried that, they made Google Video. They're also trying to make something like Facebook (Google Plus), hasn't taken off so well. If Google can't make Google Video work, what makes you think Facebook Video will work?

Google Video didn't take off because of branding failure. Google is not something that people contribute to; it aggregates things that are already out there. Google Video was perceived as a search engine for video, not as a user-content site.

So instead of simply correcting that failure, Google paid $1.6 billion for something it already had.

Competition is good. Entering totally unrelated markets you're unsuited for is stupid.

Very true, I often dread "upgrades" or "redesigns" to software or websites that I like using. Everything seems to now be adding hoops that you have to jump through.

This is why I often prefer things that I either have to pay for or that are OSS because then at least I feel like I have some of influence in the relationship.

I dread the day that google slap a login page up in front of their search engine service.

Sometimes I forget that services I use everyday have login pages. I cant remember the last time I logged in to facebook.

I do it several times a day, because I keep Facebook isolated in an Incognito tab, which I strongly recommend to everyone else.

Im curious why?

It means I don't have Facebook cookies set when I visit other web sites with Like buttons, so although Facebook can see that the same browser configuration at the same IP address is visiting those sites, they have less certainty that it's really me.

Facebook is still trying to use E-mail addresses as user IDs. Amateur hour, just like Apple.

Your custom URL ending also works for signing in to Facebook.

I hadn't thought about it like this but you're completely right. In fact I think this one of the best explanations about this that I've seen. The whole silo thing is becoming increasingly irritating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com