[jasode]

>Not just metadata, but the videos.

But calculating the fingerprints of the videos rather than store on disk and serve all the exabytes video means you're still at a fundamental _information_ disadvantage.

You already know the following but I'll spell it out for readers who may not see the distinction: web surfers don't watch fingerprints... they watch the actual video bytes.

Youtube employees and researchers found out that user behavior such as actual watch time of the videos was a _stronger_ voting signal of quality than the user hitting the subscribe button. To replicate that measurement, how would Pex get similar usage data without actually storing the exabytes of videos or convincing millions of web surfers to install a browser plugin to spy on their youtube usage?

>The true challenge is in customer acquisition. Google has such a strong hold on the browser market [1], that there is just no way to convince people to "go to pex" and search for videos.

I'm not convinced of your claim that the Chrome browser is the competitive moat that prevents Pex from rising up. E.g. Tik Tok got very popular without Chrome browser help. As another example, I found out that a gardening expert[1] gets most of her views from Facebook-hosted videos instead of Youtube. She gets more than 3x the views on Facebook. I don't have a Facebook account so I watch her on Youtube but it turns out I'm actually in the minority of her audience.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/gardenanswer/videos

[doh]

>But calculating the fingerprints of the videos rather than store on disk and serve all the exabytes video means you're still at a fundamental _information_ disadvantage.

>You already know the following but I'll spell it out for readers who may not see the distinction: web surfers don't watch fingerprints... they watch the actual video bytes.

This is like saying "nobody goes to Google to look at links, they want the actual pages". These are search engines. People are more than happy to use them to find what they are looking for.

>Youtube employees and researchers found out that user behavior such as actual watch time of the videos was a _stronger_ voting signal of quality than the user hitting the subscribe button. To replicate that measurement, how would Pex get similar usage data without actually storing the exabytes of videos or convincing millions of web surfers to install a browser plugin to spy on their youtube usage?

Exactly the same way Google does it in their own search. User clicks on a link based on a keyword which creates a loop that you feed into the system.

We also have a lot of information. For instance we know what video is deployed where on the web, which pieces (down to 1s) are being taken out and how they are utilized and also general performance of the content on each platform. This way we are able to show things like "here is the best part of this video" or "here is the first occurrence of this video" or "here is the longest version of the video".

>I'm not convinced of your claim that the Chrome browser is the competitive moat that prevents Pex from rising up

I can tell you didn't read the link I posted. I never claimed this because of Chrome. They are the default search engine on EVERY browser. Firefox, Safari, Chrome. The tyranny of defaults is quite substantial.

>TikTok got very popular without Chrome browser help. This feeds into my second argument. No VC will fund it. TikTok spent billions on ads to promote their app. My point was exactly that. It's not the technology that is the issue, it's the marketing. We would just never stood the chance.

>As another example, I found out that a gardening expert[1] gets most of her views from Facebook-hosted videos instead of Youtube. She gets more than 3x the views on Facebook. I don't have a Facebook account so I watch her on Youtube but it turns out I'm actually in the minority of her audience.

YouTube is big, but small part of the UGC world, which is quite diverse. That's why a search engine would make sense.

[jasode]

>This is like saying "nobody goes to Google to look at links, they want the actual pages". These are search engines. People are more than happy to use them to find what they are looking for.

That's not my point. Yes of course the websurfers click away from a search engine to the original source url to read a blog etc. My perspective was not the websurfer but the statistics aggregation of websurfers playback behavior for Youtube as a factor to recommend videos for other websurfers.

For non-video search engines like Google/Bing/CommonCrawl, the web spiders download the actual HTML text and also execute some of the pages' javascript to add into their own index which is similar to users uploading actual bytes of video data. Google can then apply extra analysis on their copies of others documents. Pex fingerprints of videos are not the same. Unlike html of text pages with url links for Pagerank to cheaply extract and exploit, videos do not have a built-in "link" structure to other videos and don't form a graph for analysis. Therefore, signals like measuring actual user behavior drives a lot of the algorithm for recommendations. They have lot of this data ... because they host the majority of videos... which happens because hosting videos is expensive.

A pure search engine without hosting the actual video bytes and only links to others doesn't have the same virtuous loop of data feedback. It's fundamentally missing information that Youtube has. If I search Pex for "how to fix a faucet" and I click on a search result url that takes me to "http://ugc.com/fixfaucet.mp4" and it turns out it's a bad video and I abort the playback after 10 seconds, how would Pex know of my dissatisfaction based on realtime behavior happening on another website you don't control? In contrast, Youtube knows about my dissatisfaction without me having to click "thumbs down" icon.

> For instance we know what video is deployed where on the web, which pieces (down to 1s) are being taken out and how they are utilized and also general performance of the content on each platform. This way we are able to show things like "here is the best part of this video"

If you don't have visibility into the actual play/pause/stop buttons of the Youtube's video player and the browser's close-tab button, how do you get the same user behavior data Youtube has?

>They are the default search engine on EVERY browser. Firefox, Safari, Chrome. The tyranny of defaults is quite substantial.

And yet Facebook's walled garden of video hosting has many content creators with higher audiences than Youtube regardless of Safari/etc browser defaults for Google. Tik Tok found success as well. I disagree that it was billions in marketing.

Back in 2005, Google was also the default search engine for AOL and Yahoo and yet a little upstart like Youtube (without billions) was beating Google's own Video service! The irony! Susan Wojcicki was the early employee of Google who convinced Larry Page that they were losing and to acquire Youtube instead.

>TikTok spent billions on ads to promote their app. [...] It's not the technology that is the issue, it's the marketing. We would just never stood the chance.

I disagree with a CEO who boils down his business disadvantages to "marketing" expenditures. Let's consider Google of circa ~2002. How did the underfunded Larry & Sergei _pay_ for the search default deals with AOL and Yahoo when they themselves didn't have billions to spend on marketing? Remember, they only had $25 million in VC capital. The way they partnered with the then much bigger AOL/Yahoo was to offer them a revenue sharing deal for the Adwords revenue. They had the better technology which AOL/Yahoo wanted and Google used a clever "arbitrage" to fund the deals.

As the CEO, you can use a similar playbook. You need to come up with a compelling technical product (maybe more than content fingerprints, etc) and then work out a clever financial arrangement (subscriptions, or licensing, or partnering with Bing/Apple/Amazon to beat Google, etc) -- that makes your lack of billions irrelevant.

>YouTube is big, but small part of the UGC world, which is quite diverse. That's why a search engine would make sense.

Ok, that's a fine business thesis. (Seriously.) A universal search engine that's superior to Youtube because your algorithm would transcend the entire UGC landscape should easily prove to websurfers that they get much better recommendations.

If millions of others agree with you, that proves you have a compelling product. You don't need billions. Neither the early startup Google nor early Youtube had that type of money. Every company that seems formidable and unbeatable today because they have billions in the bank was previously a small company that didn't have billions. Likewise, you can be one of those companies that finds a way to billions instead of falling back on lack of marketing as the roadblock.

[doh]

>Pex fingerprints of videos are not the same.

We also download the content to our servers. We analyze it, hence the fingerprint, and then delete the content. So yes, it's not apples to apples, but it works very similarly.

>They have lot of this data ... because they host the majority of videos... which happens because hosting videos is expensive.

Fair, but not that necessary. Usage data is great, but YouTube has only data on YouTube. It would be great to have them, but the search is about letting person to find what they are looking for. And for that the exact usage data is not necessary.

>A pure search engine without hosting the actual video bytes and only links to others doesn't have the same virtuous loop of data feedback

Yes, but again, that's the same thing as when Google points you to a page. Yes they hold the HTML page, but you are not reading it there. They don't know if you read what's on the page, what you did there, etc. Same as we don't know what you did with the video once you got there.

>I disagree that it was billions in marketing https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiktoks-videos-are-goofy-its-st...

>Back in 2005, Google was also the default search engine for AOL and Yahoo and yet a little upstart like Youtube (without billions) was beating Google's own Video service! The irony! Susan Wojcicki was the early employee of Google who convinced Larry Page that they were losing and to acquire Youtube instead.

Nuances matter. Google bought YouTube not because it was beating their video service but because they were perceived by most users as a search engine and it posed huge competitive challenge to their core business. Why did Facebook buy Instagram?

>I disagree with a CEO who boils down his business disadvantages to "marketing" expenditures.

Fair. You are free to go and run with it. You don't have to agree with me. I gave you my reasoning why I am not doing it.

>If millions of others agree with you, that proves you have a compelling product. You don't need billions. Neither the early startup Google nor early Youtube had that type of money. Every company that seems formidable and unbeatable today because they have billions in the bank was previously a small company that didn't have billions. Likewise, you can be one of those companies that finds a way to billions instead of falling back on lack of marketing as the roadblock.

I don't think you understood. We built quite large and growing company already. I have no interest entering the market as I found better business for myself and the company. I shared with you my analysis of why I decided against entering the market. Again, you don't have to agree with it.