They need to fix that philosophy, because it was their avoidance of manipulative end user tactics in the early stage that helped them win out over MySpace.
Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social network to go with it, something Google can't bring to the table (they tried and failed). It could take them a long time to assemble critical mass of videos, but unless YouTube forbid it in their TOS (which I doubt, considering many people are openly advertising their steemit channels) most producers would clone their content to FB very quickly, especially smaller ones who are pissed off at demonetization.
FB's weak links in my estimation are the stubborn insistence to have everything under Facebook.com (rather than a sibling site), and the trust they've lost in the last year.
Probably because some aspects of computer science/website engineering are not entirely nailed down and years of experience still count for something.
They have WhatsApp and Instagram under different names.
I wonder if Facebook is treating Instagram like a second earth. If they ruin the first they still have a backup.
Facebook's challenge, IMHO, isn't technical, it's cultural. Namely: it's transparently selfish and seems to mostly act for it's short term advantage. It doesn't know how to share a pie. It doesn't seem to have a consistent strategy for people to build around.
> most producers would clone their content to FB very quickly, especially smaller ones who are pissed off at demonetization.
> and the trust they've lost in the last year.
Facebook let social games get out of hand, then it kneecapped all the social game makers.
Facebook kneecapped people who learned to depend on FB Pages to reach their audiences, to force them to buy ads.
Facebook just kneecapped video producers, probably worse than Youtube did. They kneecapped the news media as well.
If I was a video content producer, I wouldn't use a Facebook Youtube clone, even if it seemed better. I'd expect to get kneecapped, probably in the 2-3 year timeframe.
> If I was a video content producer, I wouldn't use a Facebook Youtube clone, even if it seemed better. I'd expect to get kneecapped, probably in the 2-3 year timeframe.
But unless any platform has an exclusivity clause, it's pretty risk free and largely effort free (a multi-platform deployment tool will emerge I'd think) for producers to publish to all platforms. Actually, if(!) platforms would cooperate, this would be nice because they could then differentiate on features.
Youtube is a higher-quality video content site. It has lots of experience serving this type of content.
But as a social network, Youtube is gutter-quality, the worst of the worst. The kind of social network whose more disgruntled content providers are literally trying to murder the people running the site and whose comment section is infamous for being something like the most awful part of Internet.
I agree with the sentiment though, I remember during the 2016 election debates in the US, watching the YouTube live comments fill up with Unicode-art swasticas and depictions of people with turbans and bombs being shot at from behind a wall, and just incoherient expletives and slurs peppered in between.
The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. If I want to binge something in the background or watch AvE tear apart power tools (seriously, he's awesome) I go to Youtube. I've never gone to Facebook when I wanted to watch video content.