Re:A New Chat Bot Is a ‘Code Red’ for Google’s Search Business
by tpl on Friday December 23, 2022 @08:15PM
(#34112736)
Right now YouTube is pushing Shorts pretty heavily. Everything I have heard from creators is that Shorts can drive a ton of subscriptions into your channel. How many of those viewers watch the long form stuff is a bit more a mystery though.
Re:A New Chat Bot Is a ‘Code Red’ for Google’s Search Business
by PartiallyTyped on Friday December 23, 2022 @08:12PM
(#34112716)
> and nobody cares about Shorts
Not creators though. Shorts give more revenue to the creators than TikTok equivalent.
Personally, I prefer shorts, simply because I don't have to download yet another app. Don't get me wrong. I am not searching for them, but if something interesting shows up, I will watch it.
Re:A New Chat Bot Is a ‘Code Red’ for Google’s Search Business
by OJFord on Friday December 23, 2022 @09:11PM
(#34113135)
But the thread's about Google, so if nobody cares except the creators because they get laid more by Google, that's even worse (for Google prospect).
I also watch them for anyone I follow anyway, but the short & portrait format is annoying.
Re:A New Chat Bot Is a ‘Code Red’ for Google’s Search Business
by PartiallyTyped on Saturday December 24, 2022 @06:50AM
(#34116018)
I was making the claim that creators being more interested in shorts due to the higher return would actually be good for Google.
I do agree on the criticism of the format, plus the fact that I can't seem to scroll and the repetition are annoying to say the least.
And how's that going?
I don't have any interest in either of them, but as an outsider it certainly seems like a tonne of people like TikTok and nobody cares about Shorts, wishes they were normal YouTube videos.
And why do you assume 'AI chat' has to be a subscriber model, but 'search' works with ads?
It could easily have a 'recommended sponsor' as an example for certain queries. Or really trivially - just intersperse responses with ads... Exactly like search? And the data collection that's possible is superior too, surely?