I have a question and this might seem stupid. If I remember correctly Twitch uses GBs wiki database for the games begin streamed. If Youtube was to do this, would Twitch stop using GBs database?
@dudeglove: I don't mean to downplay everything you took the care of writing out in great detail, even though I understand the YouTube link near the end is aimed at mocking (myself and..) those who don't take greater interest in what is happening around us - but corruption exists on every level, and happens every day, and has been happening every day for years now. Look no further than the, arguably, a lot more important judicial system.
I think it's favorable to meet halfway on this issue. Not every person is necessarily a completely clueless idiot for enjoying Google at a surface level, while at the same time you are right in that we should be looking a little closer at how big companies are handling our information and interacting with one another.
@dudeglove: Very well put. I think that when many people buy into or use Google's services they're not really thinking about what they're using and what they're buying into. Whether it be with money or with privacy or ideals or whatever. I personally use Bing exclusively and get laughed at a lot in real life because Google is apparently the holy one-and-only, and apparently Bing sucks. News flash, it doesn't and works perfectly excellent. I also use Windows Phone, and apparently that also sucks because it doesn't have the holy Google backing it. Or something. It's pretty stupid.
I realize that Microsoft as a company is also an entity that wants our money, but I simply trust them more. They keyword is "more". These are all companies and we shouldn't trust them really with anything, but we can't make the things that they make or provide. It's simply picking the lesser evil and I firmly believe that Microsoft is a company that can offer everything Google can without the looming dark cloud that Google embodies. Apple is among these companies too, and while I don't necessarily like anything that Apple offers, I don't think they're as much of a threat to the internet as Google is.
I think this disconnect comes about chiefly because Microsoft and Apple charge money for their products and services and make tons of money, while Google charges nothing - well not exactly true, Google offers corporate "business solutions" and other things - for its admittedly excellent services (which it uses to gather huge amounts of information) and also makes tons of money (from the sale of information). One is free, the other isn't, so common sense dictates the "free" one is surely up to no good (and they aren't in some respects).
Apple is among these companies too, and while I don't necessarily like anything that Apple offers, I don't think they're as much of a threat to the internet as Google is.
It depends on how you define "threat to the Internet" regarding Apple. They're not as knee-deep in the privacy racket as Google is, but if you view corporate conspiracy to fix wages, stifle creativity and essentially play god with the Valley job market as a threat to the overall progression of the Internet, then they absolutely are (or were, before the Dept. of Justice suit finally hit). UI designers have more of a bone to pick with Apple (and Spielberg) more than anyone else for supposedly setting the trend with iPhones and so forth.
What sorts of services does Google offer that are free in comparison to Microsoft and Apple? In terms of phones, all of them you need to buy. Google now has it's own OS on laptops/tablets. I'm asking because I actually don't know!
And yeah, I mentioned Apple because I don't think they have the same internet footprint as Google but they still are a company that has power to make things go the way they want, like how you say with the situation in Silicon Valley. I just don't really agree with the Apple design and philosophy of having the same product in different form factors over and over again. And the fact that they're able to get away with that shows how much influence they have over the market. To me it's simply stagnation that's being lauded under the guise of a solidified user base.
While they don't have their hands in as many endeavours as Google, they do have this strange control over marketing and branding that people just eat up. It's more of a psychological thing with them, whereas with Google everything is a straight up race to have everything.
And then we have Microsoft which has just become such a fucking weird company and I really like how they are just doing strange, different shit. They have no obtuse marketing factor, they have their hands in only the things they feel they need right now, and their products require a more end-user decision than a "Here, you need this!" mind-control type of forced, marketing-based decision that the others offer.
I hope so as Twitch is hot garbage right now. The fact that most archives are only watchable at 720p+ is insane to me. There are more people out there that can only watch 480p then those that can watch 720p. It's ass backwards that they don't start people at a lower resolution and then allow higher later. There's several people I want to watch, but because of the above mentioned I can't. So if Google buying them makes that happen then I'm all for it.
I feel like the only person on the internet who does not get the Google + hate.
I'm with you, I don't see where the problem is, account like any other. Every damn site requires a login nowdays so where's the big problem. I have a google+ account and I haven't used it yet except for where google asks me for, like on my Nexus 5. I haven't even touched it yet, besides maybe the photo backup feature and gmail (which I had way before google+ existed).
As for the merger, we'll see how it turns out. As for the connection problems, I'm from Europe and never had any problems what so ever streaming 5 streams at once at "source" option, so can't really speak for that, no buffering, no breaks no nothing, works just fine 99% of the time. The chat however is broken at least 5 times in an hour :D
I can't believe there are really people decrying the death of Twitch.
FIrst of all, Twitch desperately needs to be bought by a very rich entity, and frankly, YouTube is the best option for them because YouTube is a) rich as fuck thanks to Google, and b) the current king of Internet video. It's very rare that I have to sit and wait for YouTube to buffer; I constantly have to wait for Twitch to buffer and god help me if I want to skip around in a video. Twitch needed this more than YouTube did.
Second, does anyone seriously think that Google would buy Twitch if they were worried about copyright protection? On YouTube proper, sure, Google has been trying to figure out the rules and has been a little strict. It's not exactly a secret that they don't want copyright violation especially in regards to games. But why would they buy Twitch if they were going to treat it like YouTube? They'd buy it then literally just shut the whole thing down. Why would they do that? What business sense does that make for Google, for YouTube, for Twitch, or even for game developers? It's makes sense for no one.
@spraynardtatum: I don't care about "poor Twitch" or whatever. I care about making things better for me. If YouTube can help make Twitch work as flawlessly as YouTube itself by sharing video player technology or just blowing out Twitch's resources with way more servers and space so I don't have to sit there waiting for Twitch to buffer, awesome. If not, oh well.
Then what do you think the logical reason behind YouTube acquiring Twitch would be? I mean YouTube has its own streaming service, so you think this is an act of snubbing out competition?
Why do you think Facebook bought Instagram? Facebook is primarily a photo sharing site (though it may not seem so at first glance, that's what drives most of their traffic), and Instagram's rising popularity worried them. So, they through a bunch of cash into a briefcase, tossed it at them, and made their problem go away. Plain and simple.
I don't think of it like that. YouTube is too big of an entity at this point to be worried about competition. Unlike Facebook, which is declining in popularity, the nature of YouTube's service allows it to pretty much only grow. I think of this as an act of getting another company, not to snub out competition, but to create an even better platform. In the process perhaps figure out ways to more easily allow gaming related content. Higher up industry suits probably think, "hey our game is being broadcast to YouTube so no one will buy the game, so take it down! Copyright!" but at the same time be like "Twitch is great for streaming competitions and eSports." It's an old mentality, but if YouTube absorbs Twitch it can perhaps make it easier for content creators to post video game related stuff.
@liquidprince: I think the end result will see an integration of Twitch's streaming tech with Youtube's VoD handling, which on paper makes for a compelling product as long as they hammer out their copyright situation.
My Facebook example was purely to point out that other tech companies have done the same thing, and that Youtube buying Twitch in order to prop up their poor streaming service doesn't seem out of the question.
YouTube video works about 100 times better than Twitch. Twitch has major issues with their archives. Watch a Bombin' in the AM and tell me how many issues you have with it. Now, try that with a twitch stream archive...
YouTube video works about 100 times better than Twitch. Twitch has major issues with their archives. Watch a Bombin' in the AM and tell me how many issues you have with it. Now, try that with a twitch stream archive...
Yeah, it's absolutely ridiculous to argue otherwise. YouTube is many times bigger than Twitch and has way more resources, so naturally they have fewer issues.Twitch themselves admitted they've been struggling to keep up with demand. If they weren't, this deal wouldn't be happening.
@counterclockwork87: Youtube still needs to buffer. You're right though, it's better than Twitch currently. I just wish Twitch chose to do it themselves rather than sell out. They could have improved their site themselves (which would take longer and be harder but they'd still be their own entity). Google just gave them the easy, immediate, and alluring billion dollar fix. I think it was cowardly of them to accept.
Log in to comment