YouTube is not a real business (2006)(calacanis.com)
calacanis.com
YouTube is not a real business (2006)
http://calacanis.com/2006/02/20/youtube-is-not-a-real-business/
13 comments
Yeah. I remember when I used to use MySpace and Facebook simultaneously, thinking FB was kinda interesting but I much preferred MySpace (because music).
Not only do things change dramatically, it's so easy to forget how things were before. At the time, Facebook (for me) was all about SuperPokes and Mafia Wars and Poker. No photos, no at-mentions, status updates and sharing news was harder, no share button.
Not only do things change dramatically, it's so easy to forget how things were before. At the time, Facebook (for me) was all about SuperPokes and Mafia Wars and Poker. No photos, no at-mentions, status updates and sharing news was harder, no share button.
I recall preferring Gopher pages to early WWW pages, because they were much cleaner and more organized in the terminal-based browsers I was using. It was an important lesson in my own ability to predict the future!
All too often, they still are. I long for a modern Gopher targeted toward mobile devices and quick, lightweight navigation.
Back in the day, Facebook was actually a great way to share because they'd repost any RSS you fed them. I hooked it up to my del.icio.us and my tumblr. I was pretty pissed when they cut that feature off. Facebook in 2015 still can't hold a candle to flickr circa 2004 when it comes to hosting photos.
In hindsight I'm actually pretty proud of my 2002 myspace page. I added some css that completely hid their gruesome UI and made it a blank slate that I filled with nice minimal design.
In hindsight I'm actually pretty proud of my 2002 myspace page. I added some css that completely hid their gruesome UI and made it a blank slate that I filled with nice minimal design.
As far as I can tell MySpace really was the superior option, Facebook just happened to get more popular and get more critical mass for some reason.
There are two small but hugely significant UX differences between MySpace and early Facebook that help explain why so many people abandoned the former for the latter:
1. Facebook didn't have any ads for a long time while MySpace was stuffed full of fairly intrusive ads.
2. Facebook didn't allow users to customize the appearance of their profile. Profile customization sounds good in theory, but in practice people end up making some hideous profiles when given too much control over appearance.
1. Facebook didn't have any ads for a long time while MySpace was stuffed full of fairly intrusive ads.
2. Facebook didn't allow users to customize the appearance of their profile. Profile customization sounds good in theory, but in practice people end up making some hideous profiles when given too much control over appearance.
Myspace was never a superior option. On Myspace you had friend requests from people you didn't know and most of your friend list was also random. There was no real value in your profile's social network.
With Facebook you could 'creep' on someone you met at a party, or in your building, class, etc. People shared photos openly.
With Facebook you could 'creep' on someone you met at a party, or in your building, class, etc. People shared photos openly.
Facebook had a distinct function: college students could organize parties on it.
Facebook had a small, exclusive original audience. You had to have a .edu email, and you had to be at one of the chosen colleges to be able to sign up. I think the exclusivity and the fact that high schoolers with animated gifs all over their pages weren't on it made it popular to college students.
The next young crowd is always fickle, looking for the next hip thing to escape from the established path. That makes social networks inherently unstable over time. And that's why Facebook is always on the lookout for any new breakaway social network and will pay dearly to bring it under their umbrella.
> "Let me break it down: YouTube and other video hosting sites have made it easy to pirate stuff on the web (which is where piracy started), but they shouldn’t be positioned as some revolutionary business. It’s a silly, little business that anyone could setup in a week. The fact that folks are talking about them being bought for some large amount of money by Newscorp is commical. They are a glorified FTP site with TAGS people! I could set this up in a weekend with two kids in high-school and a couple of cases of Red Bull. In fact, the first two programmers to email me with a decent resume I’ll back you guys to build a YouTube compeititor–provided you can build it in under five days."
I guess the lesson here, as with all sorts of criticisms of early products– Instagram, the first iPhone, and even the Internet itself– is that it's easy to underestimate how much things can change, and how powerful a large audience can be. I'm sure I'm not being nuanced enough there (because sites with large audiences don't always keep them– Digg, MySpace).
Would love to hear some smart thoughts about what we all ought to learn from this sort of thing, so that we (hopefully) don't keep making the same prediction errors over and over again!
Or is it simply inescapable?
I guess the lesson here, as with all sorts of criticisms of early products– Instagram, the first iPhone, and even the Internet itself– is that it's easy to underestimate how much things can change, and how powerful a large audience can be. I'm sure I'm not being nuanced enough there (because sites with large audiences don't always keep them– Digg, MySpace).
Would love to hear some smart thoughts about what we all ought to learn from this sort of thing, so that we (hopefully) don't keep making the same prediction errors over and over again!
Or is it simply inescapable?
It's easy to forget that things change, and change tends to be exponential. What YouTube did was remove the hassle and fiction in posting videos online. It used to take a lot of effort, and many people who didn't know enough didn't realize the complexities involved.
The author here calls youtube an ftp site, and in doing so ignores what set youtube apart. Youtube automatically transcoded videos, it played videos in your browser inline with other content, and it was free. All you had to do was make your video small enough to upload and YouTube did the rest. You didn't have to worry about codecs, or hosting, or bandwidth Nichols, or domain registration, or any of that. Previously if you wanted to host a video online you had to optimize the encoding, pay for bandwidth, and worry about compatibility depending on encoding. Then your video would be viewed by a browser plugin, usually as a bare video.
Plus there was a catch-22, if your video got too popular it would cost a ton of money to host. Youtube got rid of all that hassle, and in so doing naturally started to acquire content and users. Once the critical mass network effect kicked in then youtube became the default place to view and post any and all video content. From there it should have been obvious to anyone paying sufficient attention that the quality would only go up, the costs of bandwidth and servers would only go down and with a sufficient number of viewers that some monetization strategy or another was likely to be effective.
People made similar mistakes about tons of new technologies, the commonality is often assuming that the launch state is the end state, and not square one of a massive acceleration in sophistication, features, etc.
The author here calls youtube an ftp site, and in doing so ignores what set youtube apart. Youtube automatically transcoded videos, it played videos in your browser inline with other content, and it was free. All you had to do was make your video small enough to upload and YouTube did the rest. You didn't have to worry about codecs, or hosting, or bandwidth Nichols, or domain registration, or any of that. Previously if you wanted to host a video online you had to optimize the encoding, pay for bandwidth, and worry about compatibility depending on encoding. Then your video would be viewed by a browser plugin, usually as a bare video.
Plus there was a catch-22, if your video got too popular it would cost a ton of money to host. Youtube got rid of all that hassle, and in so doing naturally started to acquire content and users. Once the critical mass network effect kicked in then youtube became the default place to view and post any and all video content. From there it should have been obvious to anyone paying sufficient attention that the quality would only go up, the costs of bandwidth and servers would only go down and with a sufficient number of viewers that some monetization strategy or another was likely to be effective.
People made similar mistakes about tons of new technologies, the commonality is often assuming that the launch state is the end state, and not square one of a massive acceleration in sophistication, features, etc.
The other key thing with YouTube was that in the early days it delivered the video fast. There was no waiting or delay while it buffered. That wasn't the case with other video sites of the era.
Very true. Back then there were a ton of options for video. Hosted mpegs, avis, real video, quicktime, divx, etc. Most of the viral videos of the day were short enough to be downloaded in their entirety. Streaming video was usually extremely low quality with frequent interruptions for buffering. Youtube got rid of most of those problems and improved the situation with buffering by a huge margin.
> The author here calls youtube an ftp site, and in doing so ignores what set youtube apart.
Great point. Very often people when people don't understand a business, or dislike it, it seems that they reduce it to its superficial components. Eg "Uber is just private taxis", "Amazon is just an online bookseller", "Twitter is just a microblogging service".
There's usually something more to it than meets the eye, if you're willing to look.
Great point. Very often people when people don't understand a business, or dislike it, it seems that they reduce it to its superficial components. Eg "Uber is just private taxis", "Amazon is just an online bookseller", "Twitter is just a microblogging service".
There's usually something more to it than meets the eye, if you're willing to look.
I remember people said[1] we could do the same as Dropbox by "getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs .." when the drew houston posted on HN. Not that we couldn't, just that not every user is capable to. So, look at where Dropbox is now.
[1] : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
[1] : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
>It used to take a lot of effort, and many people who didn't know enough didn't realize the complexities involved.
It's funny how fast we forget this. Compare video game videos today to 10 years ago. Someone would make a video, spend five hours uploading it via ftp to a niche video hosting website, link me to that website from a separate forum for the game, then I'd spend 40 minutes downloading a video I'd watch twice. It's downright primitive to what we have today. And it was only a decade ago.
It's funny how fast we forget this. Compare video game videos today to 10 years ago. Someone would make a video, spend five hours uploading it via ftp to a niche video hosting website, link me to that website from a separate forum for the game, then I'd spend 40 minutes downloading a video I'd watch twice. It's downright primitive to what we have today. And it was only a decade ago.
Well, Calacanis is much more successful than me so I'm inclinded to think that:
1. Yes, he made the wrong call on Youtube. 2. The habit of making wrong (but still reasonable) calls might be a good one.
My learning from this:
1. Form a view based on the best facts and analysis available at the time. 2. Act on that view. Share it. Be confident. 3. Be ready to change your mind and not worry about having been wrong.
Success is about taking enough good gambles that some pay off. Most people don't let themselves take good gambles, and the value of a few paying off more than pays for a few that don't. If it's not a gamble at all everybody will be doing it.
1. Yes, he made the wrong call on Youtube. 2. The habit of making wrong (but still reasonable) calls might be a good one.
My learning from this:
1. Form a view based on the best facts and analysis available at the time. 2. Act on that view. Share it. Be confident. 3. Be ready to change your mind and not worry about having been wrong.
Success is about taking enough good gambles that some pay off. Most people don't let themselves take good gambles, and the value of a few paying off more than pays for a few that don't. If it's not a gamble at all everybody will be doing it.
And then people made the same "glorified ftp site" and "could make it in a weekend" comments about Dropbox.
Video technology is one of the few deep technology plays in mass market web - sheer number of protocols and standards, securing digital video, streaming video using non QOS means catering to each and every device and bandwidth, content personalisation, ad targeting all are problems of a magnitude bigger than the mundane ones you encounter on transactional/social web. Youtube has become the golden standard of video streaming - and without Google technology and money - this would not have been possible.
It is pretty indisputable that YouTube got where it is now by exploiting large-scale piratism. While I'm not fan of piratism overall, at least when it sort of communal effort it somewhat palatable. But for-profit piratism really crosses the line and imho is fairly disgusting as a business.
This comment reminds me of book pirates stealing books from England [1] and publishing them in the US (which the English had been previously doing to the French):
> Some (U.S. publishers) sent agents to England with orders to grab volumes from bookstalls... and ship them west by fast packet. Copy was then rushed from the dock to the composing room, presses run night and day, and books hurried to the stores or hawked in the streets like hot corn.
One of the most successful pirates was the company that eventually became HarperCollins, now owned by News Corp.
[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/how-piracy-built-the-u-s-publishing...
> Some (U.S. publishers) sent agents to England with orders to grab volumes from bookstalls... and ship them west by fast packet. Copy was then rushed from the dock to the composing room, presses run night and day, and books hurried to the stores or hawked in the streets like hot corn.
One of the most successful pirates was the company that eventually became HarperCollins, now owned by News Corp.
[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/how-piracy-built-the-u-s-publishing...
Part of me feels like the best way into a massively successful business is simply to have faster lawyers. Put cocaine in your soft drink before they make it illegal, and by the time the law gets changed, you'll already have established your customer base.
There's no rule in boxing that you can't hit your opponent in the head, because there's never been a fighter strong enough to reliably kill someone by doing that once or twice. So if you can be that person first, you will be the one to change the game forever.
Makes you wonder how different the future can really be.
There's no rule in boxing that you can't hit your opponent in the head, because there's never been a fighter strong enough to reliably kill someone by doing that once or twice. So if you can be that person first, you will be the one to change the game forever.
Makes you wonder how different the future can really be.
So, if one extended your philosophy, that would suggest that sites like Megaupload were crossing the line? It could be argued that they were hosting pirated content for a profit.
Isn't the official story that YouTube still isn't profitable?
If that's true, then Calacanis kinda had a point.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-fo...
If that's true, then Calacanis kinda had a point.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-fo...
"YouTube stars in Google's latest earnings call"
https://fortune.com/2015/04/23/youtube-stars-in-googles-late...
Like any other business, you reinvest profit as long as your growth is accelerating.
Like any other business, you reinvest profit as long as your growth is accelerating.
The alternative is to stop growing, collect profit, and pay taxes.
Same with Amazon, Shopify and other growing businesses, no? Which then begs the question of "what is a real business".
In my book, as long as there are customers who are paying money and they're happy with the results, you're a real business. (Would love to hear counterpoint perspectives!)
In my book, as long as there are customers who are paying money and they're happy with the results, you're a real business. (Would love to hear counterpoint perspectives!)
Some small businesses might not turn a profit per se but if the owner(s) get a descent salary each month that might make them happy, the aim is not always to optimize profits for shareholders or get venture capital...
To be fair to Calacanis - who is often both wrong and right and seems to draw a lot of ire for being brash and at least hes specific and keeps the archive up. Making predictions is a hard problem. Lots of people thought MySpace was going to be the social network at the time -- the postion FB occupies now.
I'm not sure why he placed so much value on Engadget - thats just a big tech blog. I don't see how he didn't see the potential in YouTube which ultimately carried Googles attempt at social networking - though unlike MySpace, YouTube didn't have a clear second at the time - DailyMotion would be the only I could think of.
I'm not sure why he placed so much value on Engadget - thats just a big tech blog. I don't see how he didn't see the potential in YouTube which ultimately carried Googles attempt at social networking - though unlike MySpace, YouTube didn't have a clear second at the time - DailyMotion would be the only I could think of.
I think one of the big lessons about prediction is– avoid dramatic predictions that something is NOT or NEVER going to happen (Internet, iPhones), and avoid predicting that something WILL totally change the world (Segways). Better to be cautious and talk about the underlying principles. (People are always going to be interested in cheaper products, faster shipping, being able to do more with less, communicating with one another, etc.)
Of course, this assumes you're interested in being accurate in your predictions. Lots of people get by great with making faulty predictions, as long as they don't have to bet their own livelihoods on their predictions.
Of course, this assumes you're interested in being accurate in your predictions. Lots of people get by great with making faulty predictions, as long as they don't have to bet their own livelihoods on their predictions.
>People are always going to be interested in cheaper products
Ironically this has been the constant anti-Apple motto since 2003, and it has been disproven time and again, with cheaper alternatives that would "kill" (the iBook, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Air, etc) failing in the market.
It's not that people don't like cheap, but it's not the be all end all, and it can't be used for certain markets that are driven by other needs (including vanity).
Ironically this has been the constant anti-Apple motto since 2003, and it has been disproven time and again, with cheaper alternatives that would "kill" (the iBook, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Air, etc) failing in the market.
It's not that people don't like cheap, but it's not the be all end all, and it can't be used for certain markets that are driven by other needs (including vanity).
Oh, yes, absolutely.
To refine that statement a little– I don't mean that people won't want iPhones and Macbooks and Apple Watches. The latest Macbook looks so amazing, I totally want one!
What I mean is that if two products were IDENTICAL, people would want the cheaper version. The way Apple stays ahead is by ensuring that their products are always better in SOME way (even if it's "just aesthetics" or "just branding"– it translates to real value to the customer.)
This applies more obviously to commodities– say, equally good shaving razors, equally good refrigerators and so on. You're totally right that it's not the be-all-end-all.
To refine that statement a little– I don't mean that people won't want iPhones and Macbooks and Apple Watches. The latest Macbook looks so amazing, I totally want one!
What I mean is that if two products were IDENTICAL, people would want the cheaper version. The way Apple stays ahead is by ensuring that their products are always better in SOME way (even if it's "just aesthetics" or "just branding"– it translates to real value to the customer.)
This applies more obviously to commodities– say, equally good shaving razors, equally good refrigerators and so on. You're totally right that it's not the be-all-end-all.
Apple is phenomenally profitable but only dominates the market in wealthy sub markets.
Engadget was one of the blogs for Weblogs, which he founded
What a horrible headline in 2015 -- but I stand behind it in 2006!
The fact that YouTube exists today is a miracle, and you have to really give kudos to the team there, as well as Sequoia and Google, for literally saving this business.
At the time I wrote this YouTube was not a real business, it was a very simple website built off copyright violations with unsustainable legal and bandwidth bills!
The fact that they were forced to sell a business that is now worth $100-150b for $1.6b is a good indication for how close to the brink of destruction they were.
Now, the important lessons here are:
1. Google made a sick, sick bet and won big. ------- Given that Napster, Kazaa and countless other "media sharing" services had been absolutely crushed, it is a true testament to Google's legal and leadership teams that they took this risk. It was not clear that they would win their cases, but they did.
2. Content ID was a brilliant innovation. -------- YouTube was able to calm down many a pissed off media holder when they showed them contentID: "look, we know this is your video so we will shut it down or let you claim it -- and the revenue from it -- for all time! what would you like us to do?" Think of how fucking brilliant that was? That's perhaps the biggest lesson: you can innovate your way out of legal trouble!
3. bloggers have no idea about where things are headed. -------- At the time I wrote this I was literally a nobody. I used to blog with recklessness because, well, I really didn't think people read much of what I wrote. Things have changed a bunch for me, and now that I'm older I actually pull many punches when writing about other founder's companies. the thing I regret most about this post is not me being so fabulously wrong, but the fact that I was a dick to three founders working really hard to battle impossible odds. Sorry to Chad, Steve and Jawed... sincerely.
best @jason
The fact that YouTube exists today is a miracle, and you have to really give kudos to the team there, as well as Sequoia and Google, for literally saving this business.
At the time I wrote this YouTube was not a real business, it was a very simple website built off copyright violations with unsustainable legal and bandwidth bills!
The fact that they were forced to sell a business that is now worth $100-150b for $1.6b is a good indication for how close to the brink of destruction they were.
Now, the important lessons here are:
1. Google made a sick, sick bet and won big. ------- Given that Napster, Kazaa and countless other "media sharing" services had been absolutely crushed, it is a true testament to Google's legal and leadership teams that they took this risk. It was not clear that they would win their cases, but they did.
2. Content ID was a brilliant innovation. -------- YouTube was able to calm down many a pissed off media holder when they showed them contentID: "look, we know this is your video so we will shut it down or let you claim it -- and the revenue from it -- for all time! what would you like us to do?" Think of how fucking brilliant that was? That's perhaps the biggest lesson: you can innovate your way out of legal trouble!
3. bloggers have no idea about where things are headed. -------- At the time I wrote this I was literally a nobody. I used to blog with recklessness because, well, I really didn't think people read much of what I wrote. Things have changed a bunch for me, and now that I'm older I actually pull many punches when writing about other founder's companies. the thing I regret most about this post is not me being so fabulously wrong, but the fact that I was a dick to three founders working really hard to battle impossible odds. Sorry to Chad, Steve and Jawed... sincerely.
best @jason
He was right, but in the wrong model of society.
This is the kind of mistake a founder should always watch out for. Like, keep repeating to oneself: people are not like you, people are not like you.
This is the kind of mistake a founder should always watch out for. Like, keep repeating to oneself: people are not like you, people are not like you.
Yeah. That's the classic thing to be said about all failed predictions, isn't it? They're all rigorously accurate... within the wrong models.
Relatively harmless when we're armchair theorists wondering if the Apple Watch is going to take off or not, but devastating when we make projections about economies, finance, housing prices, etc.
PS: Also, the "anybody can put together the same thing" argument has been used to discredit all sorts of things, hasn't it? Dropbox, Instagram... It reminds me of that joke about Modern art. "It's so simple, I could've done it." "Yeah, but you didn't."
Relatively harmless when we're armchair theorists wondering if the Apple Watch is going to take off or not, but devastating when we make projections about economies, finance, housing prices, etc.
PS: Also, the "anybody can put together the same thing" argument has been used to discredit all sorts of things, hasn't it? Dropbox, Instagram... It reminds me of that joke about Modern art. "It's so simple, I could've done it." "Yeah, but you didn't."
Everything is obvious in hindsight. People actually know what heat is these days, but for most of human history, we didn't. So it's easy to imagine you could have invented a steam engine in 1400 or something.
But nobody did, and there's a reason for that.
But nobody did, and there's a reason for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
> In the 1st century AD, Hero of Alexandria described the [aeolipile]
> The aeolipile Hero described is considered to be the first recorded steam engine or reaction steam turbine
> In the 1st century AD, Hero of Alexandria described the [aeolipile]
> The aeolipile Hero described is considered to be the first recorded steam engine or reaction steam turbine
Most inventions are imagined or prototyped by many people far in advance of a few time points when all the ingredients are ripe for large-scale execution.
"Build something that solves a problem you have."
"Work with what you know."
"Work with what you know."
What a different era this was:
"Watching DIGG, Engadget, and MySpace climb in the rankings? Those are real businesses."
"Watching DIGG, Engadget, and MySpace climb in the rankings? Those are real businesses."
I'm still amazed at what happened to Digg. I miss it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It takes skill to be that wrong.
All it really takes to be that wrong is a willingness to express your opinion and to leave it up after it becomes embarrassing.
There's plenty of posts on HN at least this wrong every day. :-)
There's plenty of posts on HN at least this wrong every day. :-)
[deleted]
digg WAS the real deal... until they stupidly decided to revamp the entire site. After that, everyone bailed to reddit, despite ridiculing reddit's interface as ugly and unreadable (this was literally one of the posts that had most diggs on front page just a day or two before the interface change came into effect).
I'm quite bitter about how the whole thing went down because it completely ruined reddit. As folks from Facebook began to wander outside their confines, one of the first places they usually discovered was digg. digg was like the floodgate that kept all those Facebook people away from the rest of the internet. Once the floodgate broke, they all moved to reddit.
If you look at reddit today, it's a complete cesspool.
I'm quite bitter about how the whole thing went down because it completely ruined reddit. As folks from Facebook began to wander outside their confines, one of the first places they usually discovered was digg. digg was like the floodgate that kept all those Facebook people away from the rest of the internet. Once the floodgate broke, they all moved to reddit.
If you look at reddit today, it's a complete cesspool.
I'm interested in your perspective but some of the things you say feel a little weird to me: "folks from Facebook wandering outside their confines", "rest of the internet", "complete cesspool", "completely ruined".
Could you be a little more rigorous in your statements? Are you saying that Reddit was great before Digg users migrated? What exactly do you mean by "complete cesspool?"
Could you be a little more rigorous in your statements? Are you saying that Reddit was great before Digg users migrated? What exactly do you mean by "complete cesspool?"
It wasn't "great" but reddit used to be a nice place to stop by and find quality content on the front page.
These days on reddit, you will find on the front page:
reposts;
"dank may-mays";
pictures of someone's kids, relatives or pets;
celebrities who are peddling shit in exchange for the most generic answers on AMA;
advertisements disguised as normal posts (e.g., subreddits of movies, tv, music);
world news posted with a spin to stir outrage by government agencies hiding in military barracks of US and UK and "troll houses" in Petersburg;
and other junk that's posted to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
This is especially true with subreddits that are promoted to default status. It used to be that you could find refuge in other subreddits, but even now, as soon as word spreads of their existence, they too become saturated with the Facebook folk.
These days on reddit, you will find on the front page:
reposts;
"dank may-mays";
pictures of someone's kids, relatives or pets;
celebrities who are peddling shit in exchange for the most generic answers on AMA;
advertisements disguised as normal posts (e.g., subreddits of movies, tv, music);
world news posted with a spin to stir outrage by government agencies hiding in military barracks of US and UK and "troll houses" in Petersburg;
and other junk that's posted to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
This is especially true with subreddits that are promoted to default status. It used to be that you could find refuge in other subreddits, but even now, as soon as word spreads of their existence, they too become saturated with the Facebook folk.
Oh, fair enough. I think that's a function of large audiences– the larger an audience gets, the more it allows puns, jokes, etc to rise to the top– and the more incentive there is to be thoughtlessly controversial, and the more incentive there is for advertising and spam.
The challenge to maintain standards when an audience grows is really hard. There are some subreddits that try, but it seems like a universal problem (as far as I can tell.)
The challenge to maintain standards when an audience grows is really hard. There are some subreddits that try, but it seems like a universal problem (as far as I can tell.)
I suspect it goes deeper than that - one thing I've noticed is that the Dwarf Fortress community has much more depth than the TF2 community. I suspect that this is due to TF2's ease of consumption in comparison to Dwarf fortress, or rather Dwarf Fortress's high barrier to entry in comparison to TF2.
Isn't the whole point of reddit that you can choose the kind of content you want to see with subreddits? Don't like memes and pictures? Unsubscribe from funny, adviceanimals and pics.
[deleted]
It's incredible with hindsight that it wasn't obvious - at least not to the author - that you could monetise YouTube by becoming the place to do that.