It doesn't look like Linus Tech Tips has even published any of their own content on this platform yet (at least not that i can find with a quick google search) so MVP is probably an accurate description.
edit: or wait, maybe there is content on here but you need to sign in to view any of it? if that's the case it's not very clear.
This product has been in the making for ~3 years. Luke from Linus Tech Tips used to be a video host, but has been in relatively few videos in the past 3 years because he was working on this. That's not to say those years were spent productively...
I wonder how it it compares to Nebula (Dave Wiskus, CGP Grey, and Philipp Dettmer). It seems to be roughly the same product, except for pricing ($5/m for Nebula, $3/m/creator for Floatplane)
Biggest difference IMO is that Nebula is going with the Netflix-model for their network of content creators. I'm not sure how they're going revenue sharing, but I'm guessing it's based on proportional viewership.
Nebula is probably fine if you have a large pre-existing and engaged subscription base. However, it's probably more difficult for smaller to mid-sized creators. I would worry that they're not going to get enough revenue from their share of watch time to cover their own costs. Also given that Nebula is very heavily skewed education channels, you'd likely have trouble if you're outside of that realm.
Floatplane on the other hand seems more targeted: you pay for a specific content creator. This seems more similar to how places like Rooster Teeth operated in the early days, only it's now providing the video streaming as-a-service.
Nebula will likely provide discoverability within their catalog of creators in return for the shared revenue model. Floatplane is way more direct but you're left growing your subscriber base outside of the platform.
AFAIK it was started as a replacement for Vessel which shut down a while ago. As far as I remember the initial idea was to provide a platform where creators could release their videos in an "Early Access" Model to paying subscribers while their back catalog would be freely available. Not sure if this is still the plan though, seems like it has become a more all-encompassing paid video, streaming and community platform.
I see no way to setup my own video channel, and so this site is useless. I'd love to find a way off YT, and this is (apparently) not the way forward. But nice try I guess, I don't have any other remarks really, because honestly I'm not at all interested in starting multiple subscriptions at $5 a months for these two-bit channels. $1 per channel is a massive flex, but $5 is like some fantasy world flex.
You must not be familiar with the streaming/twitch community. Even modestly popular streamers/youtubers are easily able to acquire hundreds if not thousands of $5/month subscriptions. YouTube itself offers $5/month "Channel Subscriptions" that give you access to exclusive content (of a single creator), which is exactly this product. Plenty of people like individual creators enough to throw $5 their way for ad-free higher quality videos and "behind the scenes" content.
It's not meant for random individuals to post their cat videos and make a quick buck, it's a monetization option for popular people/communities that gives them more revenue streams, which is great if it gets them out of the fist of Google/Amazon. Having 80% of your revenue tied to a mega-corp's ad rate is a big incentive to diversify...
The site seems to be at a beta stage at the moment and they are probably letting creators in very slowly so I would hold off if your intention is to completely replace YouTube.
To be clear, at $5 per channel that is like saying the channel is half as valuable as Netflix, which is simply not possible. That said, we get it... not everyone has the scale to race to the bottom like Netflix, but that's the situation just the same.
> I see no way to setup my own video channel, and so this site is useless.
It's useless to you, yes. Floatplane is a way for established video creators to acquire a more stable revenue stream and for viewers to support their preferred video creators without being subject to ads.
It's not a place for creators to find a new audience. It's not a place for new creators to build an audience. It's basically a replacement for Vessel - more like an alternative to Patreon than YouTube.
> I'm not at all interested in starting multiple subscriptions at $5 a months for these two-bit channels. $1 per channel is a massive flex, but $5 is like some fantasy world flex.
Correct. Floatplane gives users an option to pay for a premium viewing experience (better video quality, cleaner UI, better comments) while supporting their favorite creators. However, it's not an alternative to YouTube. Video creators can (and should) still use other platforms like YouTube to sustain and expand their audience.
> We encourage you to contact us if you have an issue. If a dispute does arise out of these terms of use or related to your use of the service, and it cannot be resolved by way of a discussion between us, the matter of the dispute shall be resolved by way of binding arbitration in British Columbia in accordance with the Arbitration Act (BC). The costs of such arbitration shall be borne by the losing party.
I've followed them for a while now on youtube and it has been interesting to watch them evolve their format, content, and presentation to appease youtube's algorithms. They have been pretty open [1] about how they don't like some of the changes they have had to make to stay popular on youtube. I hope they roll back some of the more annoying changes. It appears that the ugly thumbnails sadly still persist in on floatplane [2]. It would also gladly pay for a return to 5 minute videos vs the now standard 15+ min length that gets a middle youtube ad-break and increased revenue.
The terms of service are not that great, no step up from youtube.
I can't understand why current businesses think it is right to simply allow themselfes to arbitarly raise fees and delete accounts and content without any warning.
I hope this works but for any creators who are making money on youtube: Are you allowed to upload the same content on multiple sites and still remain a youtube monetizable creator? Are they recommending creators move to floatplane?
a few people have started their own platforms, and there s also generic alternatives like bitchute steem etc. I wonder who will become the open source "wordpress of youtubers"
A serious video CDN is one of those things that makes sense at scale. You have to get POPs all around the world, transcode lots of different bitrates, store it all, etc. and that sort of thing is expensive enough to get up and running that I don't forsee a lot of small-time people putting up their own versions (a la wordpress).
I think they're co-opting YouTube as the discovery wing of FloatPlane. Find channels to watch on YT, and if you like them head on over to GP and support them.
Right, how about a flat fee subscription service where creators get paid on the backend per views? And then you can choose to support a channel separately.
I'm very interested in this space. I had an idea about 3 years ago for what appears to basically be Nebula (which I just found today based on another comment in this thread). My idea was basically:
* Creators are curated and are seeded from existing Youtube channels. Curation happens on the creator level where illegal content means removal of the channel.
* No advertising so latitude for monetization of brand-unfriendly content.
* User pay a monthly subscription fee.
* Money is divided amongst creators based on watch time.
Some ideas I had that I don't see represented:
* Users have the opportunity to pay more per month and can elect to spend this money in a discretionary way, like a "tip". This isn't shared based on watch time but by direct action from the user towards creators they want to show appreciation above and beyond.
* Creators can elect some of their content as "free" content, e.g. introductory videos, videos older than 3 months, etc. in order to attract and grow an audience. This free content does not contribute to their "watch-time" that comprises their share of subscription revenue but it can attract discretionary tips.
A couple of points:
* Anyone who scoffs at the idea of the discretionary monthly "tip" idea has not watched the flood of donations to Twitch streamers. However, some kind of feedback would be required in a similar way to TTS shoutouts - I'm not sure on this. We tend to focus on the majority who say "I would never pay $Y for anything!" while ignoring the whales that would happily pay $Y * 100 given the right incentives. If you've worked in free-to-play games then you know the revenue potential of whales. If you remove the ceiling of what people can pay, some people will pay above your wildest expectations just because they can.
* I worked in video distribution and I was closely involved in managing costs. Most people cannot believe the costs involved in delivering video. Linus mentioned terabytes of data but that is the tip of the iceberg for popular content. Costs can ramp up to $100k/month for even modest audience sizes when storage and delivery are considered. That doesn't include server costs to run the multiple back-end and front-end services needed, nor the salaries of engineers and devops to keep it up. I was unable to find a way to make the $$ work without serious up-front investment. This isn't a space you can bootstrap on free tiers of cloud services.
Ultimately the real "whales" are businesses. I don't believe any subscriber funded effort can ever attract the kind of spend that massive advertising budgets can leverage. That means that platforms funded by advertising will always have a war-chest to snipe the best content creators. Think how Mix payed for Ninja and Shroud. Even if a content creator gets popular on one of these subscriber-supported platforms there will always be an advertising platform ready with cash-in-hand to steal them away.
Despite some pessimism, I am actually very bullish on this idea and I truly hope the idea succeeds!
Why on earth would they even do that?! It's just as infuriating as sites that muck around with the scroll. No...just don't. Don't try to be fancy, leave the scrolling to me.
[+] [-] RL_Quine|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notatoad|6 years ago|reply
edit: or wait, maybe there is content on here but you need to sign in to view any of it? if that's the case it's not very clear.
[+] [-] ortusdux|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] correct_horse|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phendrenad2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] choppaface|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ortusdux|6 years ago|reply
Their site is light on details, but the TOS spells it out pretty well: https://www.floatplane.com/legal/terms
[+] [-] rwmj|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e12e|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hadrien01|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devrand|6 years ago|reply
Nebula is probably fine if you have a large pre-existing and engaged subscription base. However, it's probably more difficult for smaller to mid-sized creators. I would worry that they're not going to get enough revenue from their share of watch time to cover their own costs. Also given that Nebula is very heavily skewed education channels, you'd likely have trouble if you're outside of that realm.
Floatplane on the other hand seems more targeted: you pay for a specific content creator. This seems more similar to how places like Rooster Teeth operated in the early days, only it's now providing the video streaming as-a-service.
Nebula will likely provide discoverability within their catalog of creators in return for the shared revenue model. Floatplane is way more direct but you're left growing your subscriber base outside of the platform.
Edit: fixed some typos
[+] [-] traspler|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] parasense|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ahwleung|6 years ago|reply
It's not meant for random individuals to post their cat videos and make a quick buck, it's a monetization option for popular people/communities that gives them more revenue streams, which is great if it gets them out of the fist of Google/Amazon. Having 80% of your revenue tied to a mega-corp's ad rate is a big incentive to diversify...
[+] [-] asdasdasdasdwd|6 years ago|reply
The site seems to be at a beta stage at the moment and they are probably letting creators in very slowly so I would hold off if your intention is to completely replace YouTube.
[+] [-] parasense|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CivBase|6 years ago|reply
It's useless to you, yes. Floatplane is a way for established video creators to acquire a more stable revenue stream and for viewers to support their preferred video creators without being subject to ads.
It's not a place for creators to find a new audience. It's not a place for new creators to build an audience. It's basically a replacement for Vessel - more like an alternative to Patreon than YouTube.
> I'm not at all interested in starting multiple subscriptions at $5 a months for these two-bit channels. $1 per channel is a massive flex, but $5 is like some fantasy world flex.
Correct. Floatplane gives users an option to pay for a premium viewing experience (better video quality, cleaner UI, better comments) while supporting their favorite creators. However, it's not an alternative to YouTube. Video creators can (and should) still use other platforms like YouTube to sustain and expand their audience.
[+] [-] Dayshine|6 years ago|reply
Wow, that's a hard pass then...
[+] [-] authoritarian|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdponx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LMYahooTFY|6 years ago|reply
Do you prefer litigating?
Do you think it's better for consumers?
Do you think it's better for the business?
[+] [-] gdxhyrd|6 years ago|reply
Competition in this space is hard and is always welcomed, in my opinion.
[+] [-] Havoc|6 years ago|reply
So I wish them well with this new venture
[+] [-] ortusdux|6 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzRGBAUz5mA [2] https://youtu.be/oOOOfZWXPu4?t=71
[+] [-] bpfrh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Railsify|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobbean|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buboard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] big_chungus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leshow|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SirYandi|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] authoritarian|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dayaz36|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bil7|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zekio|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benbristow|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phendrenad2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ropiwqefjnpoa|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aprvchndrs|6 years ago|reply
I think it’s more of a Patreon alternative focused on delivering video.
[+] [-] reggieband|6 years ago|reply
* Creators are curated and are seeded from existing Youtube channels. Curation happens on the creator level where illegal content means removal of the channel.
* No advertising so latitude for monetization of brand-unfriendly content.
* User pay a monthly subscription fee.
* Money is divided amongst creators based on watch time.
Some ideas I had that I don't see represented:
* Users have the opportunity to pay more per month and can elect to spend this money in a discretionary way, like a "tip". This isn't shared based on watch time but by direct action from the user towards creators they want to show appreciation above and beyond.
* Creators can elect some of their content as "free" content, e.g. introductory videos, videos older than 3 months, etc. in order to attract and grow an audience. This free content does not contribute to their "watch-time" that comprises their share of subscription revenue but it can attract discretionary tips.
A couple of points:
* Anyone who scoffs at the idea of the discretionary monthly "tip" idea has not watched the flood of donations to Twitch streamers. However, some kind of feedback would be required in a similar way to TTS shoutouts - I'm not sure on this. We tend to focus on the majority who say "I would never pay $Y for anything!" while ignoring the whales that would happily pay $Y * 100 given the right incentives. If you've worked in free-to-play games then you know the revenue potential of whales. If you remove the ceiling of what people can pay, some people will pay above your wildest expectations just because they can.
* I worked in video distribution and I was closely involved in managing costs. Most people cannot believe the costs involved in delivering video. Linus mentioned terabytes of data but that is the tip of the iceberg for popular content. Costs can ramp up to $100k/month for even modest audience sizes when storage and delivery are considered. That doesn't include server costs to run the multiple back-end and front-end services needed, nor the salaries of engineers and devops to keep it up. I was unable to find a way to make the $$ work without serious up-front investment. This isn't a space you can bootstrap on free tiers of cloud services.
Ultimately the real "whales" are businesses. I don't believe any subscriber funded effort can ever attract the kind of spend that massive advertising budgets can leverage. That means that platforms funded by advertising will always have a war-chest to snipe the best content creators. Think how Mix payed for Ninja and Shroud. Even if a content creator gets popular on one of these subscriber-supported platforms there will always be an advertising platform ready with cash-in-hand to steal them away.
Despite some pessimism, I am actually very bullish on this idea and I truly hope the idea succeeds!
[+] [-] m1el|6 years ago|reply
https://i.imgur.com/RWqwd0P.png
Thank you,
-- someone who thinks selecting text is not something you should screw with.
[+] [-] michaelmcdonald|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matthew27|6 years ago|reply