Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in One question on Flickr Video: Why?

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

sgd — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:53:38 -0000

I think it is worth adding video just to give that "Togetherness".

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

srini kumar — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:43:51 -0000

yay if it's embeddable. there are so many available segments in online video. "go up against youtube" is a mistaken premise - there is room for all. unless these companies segment, they're doomed, but segmenting online video offerings through holistic branding - piece of cake. we met several brilliant flickr folks during the web awards ceremony in austin last week. they are no slouches, flickr has a PHENOMENAL brand for video (there's even an indie film revue down in chapel hill nc called flicker - it is obvious), and every single segment that is on TV and then some could sprout its own channel. look at the wine guy. i rest my case.

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

RexHammock — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:31:30 -0000

Random answers: YouTube is a distribution channel. Flickr is a personal archival service. My Canon TX1 shoot HD video and photographs that upload automatically to iPhoto. iPhoto has a plug-in that uploads media directly to Flickr. I can download in their original format back to my computer the photos I have stored on Flickr -- and I am guessing I'll be able to do that with video -- can I do that with YouTube?

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

mndoci — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:36:03 -0000

I kinda agree. Sometimes simple is best. I don't see adding video to Flickr being of value right now, especially with so many alternatives available.

That said, I can see this being useful for some people used to adding material to Flickr. I just don't think that number will be enough. We'll see.

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

Word of Mouth Mike — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:59:44 -0000

Sharing is about community and as h8ter says why shouldn't Flickr leverage it's huge community of people who clearly have an eye for the visual.

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

Richard Budman — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:26:55 -0000

I think Flickr (read: Yahoo) is gettin' in the video game because it's still a game in infancy with potential billions on the table and lots left technology-wise to still potentially offer the audience (quality, mobile etc. etc.) Sure, YouTube is the big daddy now... and how's it's name has seeped into pop culture - will probably keep it that way for a long while (it certainly ain't the technology or quality that's keeping it there) But if there is one thing the net has shown us -- it's big entrenched daddies can still fall fast. So just maybe Yahoo is taking another shot at video, and I feel quite smartly through it's already established community of content creators - Flickr - because maybe there still is a vast video industry out there to still capture share of (?)

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

h8ter — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:28:56 -0000

Mathew, I don't think this is meant to compete against YouTube.

Most cameras (and phones) shoot photos and videos. How lame is it right now that to share my vacation photos/videos with people, I have to upload them to separate sites?

I'm guessing the usage is a little more exclusive.
If I want the world to see my videos, yes I would post them on YT.
I would use Flickr to display photos/videos that only my friends and family can access.

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

scrawledinwax — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:55:28 -0000

That's true - I hadn't though of that. Maybe you had it with the 'Yahoo-inspired push'. ('Course, we can't rule out that it's simply a bad business decision ;) )

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

mathewi — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:42:02 -0000

I suppose that's possible, Nav -- but even so, there are other sites
out there that focus on the artistic already, such as Vimeo.

On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Disqus

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

scrawledinwax — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:37:59 -0000

Something I've been wondering about lately is the relationship between a certain ethos/ethic and particular destinations. Let's say you were going to write a real 'think piece' - you'd probably send it into the Walrus/Harper's rather than Maclean's/Time right? In much the same way, places like Flickr and Tumblr sometimes seem to attract more creative/artistic types, as if there's a kind of 'editorial slant' at these sites even though those terms don't really make sense for UGC/social media. I don't really know why this happens (I'm working on it) but it seems that it's possible that Flickr video might have more 'artistic' content than YouTube in addition to the videos of kids for the grandparents etc.