Hacker News Reader

To me (non-youtuber), this feels like the common case of a developer trying to (over)optimize the process/increasing the "efficiency" of some business in a way that doesn't actually tackle any of the hard problems.

I imagine that for a youtuber who has hired an editor, the hard problems to solve are:

1. getting more subscribers

2. thinking of things to make videos about

3. shooting videos, including with good lighting and sound

This is a reply from an actual youtuber for reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/NewTubers/comments/17eg3j0/comment/...

"Hello, from the perspective of a channel owner with some experience, I do agree that your problem is real and common among YouTubers who outsource their editing. Your proposed solution does seem viable and efficient: it cuts down unnecessary steps, saves on bandwidth, and still ensures control over the video approval process. It's straightforward and practical — like a streamlined content management system specifically tailored for YouTube content creators. A potential challenge might be ensuring seamless video quality during the approval and upload processes. Nevertheless, with the right platform and technology, this could be an innovative solution for many YouTubers out there."

Note that I didn't say it's not a "real" problem - perhaps it saves a few hours / week and increases "efficiency".

The point was that it doesn't solve any of the _hard_ problems of making good videos / getting a big audience.

This reads like a chatgpt generated response

Yeah, because it is. I just looked at the comment history for that account and the guy who runs it even has a video called "ULTIMATE Guide to AUTOMATING Reddit Comment Responses for FREE Traffic"

Sure, it is a problem, and that sounds like a legit solution. But it is a small problem.

It sounds like something a small group of people would use, and it is fixing an annoyance more than a real workflow blocker. So if you are trying to just help out that group, go for it. You'll probably find people who appreciate the solution. But if you are thinking this will be a project you can monetize, I'm doubtful it will be large enough to be worth the effort.

> A platform where the YouTuber and editor comes together, editor uploads the edited video on the platform, youtuber approves the edit video to be uploaded and the video will be uploaded as soon as it is approved. This was there is a permission check to be done before a video is uploaded. Saves lot of time and bandwidth of the user.

So now you move from the issue of trusting a person you are paying and interacting with regularly to trusting a completely random site with both access to your channel, and your unreleased videos

> Saves lot of time and bandwidth of the user.

You'll just pass the bandwidth cost onto the customer anyway?

I am not sure if you know this but when a "website" asks you for your api key (youtube api key in this case), they encrypt and store it somewhere else like a vault storage by 3rd party regulated storage services (Like one which Amazon provides), so I don't see how a "website" can misuse the access via keys :)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts though

Why are you putting website in quotes? And no, not everyone stores it securely.

And yes, they totally can misuse the access

The problem is that anyone can make a website that asks you for your API key and promptly does none of this- you recognize this, right? You can say that “trustable” websites don’t do that, but that’s the point- why would anyone trust your random website when you could either be A) malicious, and purposefully steal their stuff (unlikely) or B) stupid, and fuck up their crypto and/or any of the other million moving parts in webdev security that people fuck up and end up leaking any arbitrary amount of data (extremely, comically likely) Now you could’ve just worded your response badly or we could’ve misinterpreted your words severely, but it sounds like you’re claiming that people just get it right every time someone makes a website. Even if we didn’t think A was likely, that line of thought doesn’t instill confidence that B is unlikely. Also you absolutely would NOT ask a user for their API key. The fact that you don’t immediately think you’d be using an OAuth authentication flow and getting a bearer token on behalf of the user is terrifying. The API token is for YOUR application. ——

Abject negativity over- your concept isn’t bad, and I kinda like it. You should pursue it, especially under the advice about what your outreach/advertising game is going to look like, given elsewhere in this thread. Please dear god though, talk to or hire someone who knows what they’re doing with webdev security if you’re going to deal with actual user bearer tokens- it doesn’t sound like you’ve ever built an application like this before, and you can make a million fatal missteps along the way.

Create single page landing page with an "I'm interested here's my email" modal. Use the single page to explain the problem and proposed solution (use mock up designs, whatever).

If you get N-emails, then you got a potential business.. where N is some number you invent.

The problem I see is this isn't something youtubers go searching for so SEO/content isn't going to get you leads. This will be a selling game with direct outreach/network.

What you need are a handfull of youtubers you are tight with to help you get in front of a bunch of youtubers.

The editor can upload the video and make it private.

In the mean time it is being rendered. Then the creator can review the video. If good, they can publish it to YouTube.

---

But the YouTuber will probably still need that original file back if they have an archival solution for their past content with local backups and remote backups.

>The editor can upload the video and make it private.

But this would mean youtuber would have to give access to editor of his channel. What am I missing here?

If giving access is the problem, then you can (instead of making a platform), make a script for a Digital Ocean droplet, for example.

1. Setup 5 or 6 dollar droplet.

2. Editor uploads to the droplet. It is processed and validated by script. Code script that only allows X uploads in X hours.

3. Script can keep the video in the queue and give the creator a link to view the video to the droplet (VLC remote link) OR/AND Script uploads to YouTube and sets the uploads to unpublished (defaulting to private). (https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/guides/uploading_a_...)

4. The script sends the creator or gives back a link to the editor to the video and the creator can review that video while on YouTube and while it is being encoded for all resolutions.

5. If a creator likes the video, then they themselves can schedule the publish date, and publish to YouTube.

6. Allow script to be updated over time for changes in API. Editor only needs to upload once to server. Creator downloads nothing. Also this server can auto backup the video for an archival solution to wherever else (but that is a story for another time).

My thinking here is a good UI might be beneficial? Even the backup solution would be cool enough if there is a good UI to do all this interaction.

In future, if we get good traction we want to leverage the fact that lots of editors would have signed up on the platform and make some sort of community around them so that they can find work easily via market place.

So if (when?) YouTube adds an "approve" button your platform will be destroyed?

Ask HN: Platform for Youtubers