>So I take it you did indeed not have a use for transferring individual videos to a different channel? I think "just" is a pretty reasonable word to use here, it is two well documented steps. Happy to help!
Given that my original comment described an actual, real, use case with the actual problem I faced, your take that I did not have a use would be wrong.
The solution in your first comment of moving the "channel" to a brand account is not acceptable. Therefore, the fact they were "just" two well documented steps is irrelevant because it's not the right solution. If I want to move a TV from one house to the other, I shouldn't have to transfer the house as well.
>Look, you're claiming that videos are obviously analogous to files, and should thus support the same operations that files do. But that's not the case, they're more complex objects.
At some point, they are stored somewhere, right? Database, object storage, filesystem: something on disk.
>For example, moving a video can't be unilateral. For reasons that should be pretty obvious, you have to have both the old and new owner consent to the transfer, which is going to be a fairly complex flow. There's no analogous concept in any filesystem I've ever seen.
I am the owner of both. Simple enough scenario in my case.
Are you using words like complex and obvious without really giving details because you're speaking knowingly of the internal challenges YouTube is having to move one video from one place to the other but can't go into details, or do you not know of the inner workings of YouTube?
Would you agree that the user experience of being unable to move a video from one place to another sucks, notwithstanding the existence (or inexistence) of technical challenges?
Would you agree that you start with a desired user experience and then solve the engineering challenges, not get a user experience that sucks and spend too much time telling the user why they're wrong and how it doesn't make sense to want to move one video from one place to the other, and that there are complexities for obvious reasons, and that they're not like files...
Given that my original comment described an actual, real, use case with the actual problem I faced, your take that I did not have a use would be wrong.
The solution in your first comment of moving the "channel" to a brand account is not acceptable. Therefore, the fact they were "just" two well documented steps is irrelevant because it's not the right solution. If I want to move a TV from one house to the other, I shouldn't have to transfer the house as well.
>Look, you're claiming that videos are obviously analogous to files, and should thus support the same operations that files do. But that's not the case, they're more complex objects.
At some point, they are stored somewhere, right? Database, object storage, filesystem: something on disk.
>For example, moving a video can't be unilateral. For reasons that should be pretty obvious, you have to have both the old and new owner consent to the transfer, which is going to be a fairly complex flow. There's no analogous concept in any filesystem I've ever seen.
I am the owner of both. Simple enough scenario in my case.
Are you using words like complex and obvious without really giving details because you're speaking knowingly of the internal challenges YouTube is having to move one video from one place to the other but can't go into details, or do you not know of the inner workings of YouTube?
Would you agree that the user experience of being unable to move a video from one place to another sucks, notwithstanding the existence (or inexistence) of technical challenges?
Would you agree that you start with a desired user experience and then solve the engineering challenges, not get a user experience that sucks and spend too much time telling the user why they're wrong and how it doesn't make sense to want to move one video from one place to the other, and that there are complexities for obvious reasons, and that they're not like files...