10
2006
Google Vs YouTube
The number of video-sharing sites has shot through the roof
recently, as dozens of companies try to become the Flickr
of the online video world. To this end, many video services have
started offering new features like editing and remixability in an attempt to
snatch a piece of the ever-expanding online video pie. But for the
average user–who just wants to post a video on the ‘net and share it with some
friends–there are already Google Video and You Tube, competing each other.
Here is a comparison of Google Video and You Tube :
Appeal: It’s Google.
Interface: Typically clean and sparse Google layout. Uploading
requires you download the Google Video Uploader. Allows you to add plenty
of metadata, including a transcript. You can monetize your content by
assigning a sale price to each clip (you can also give users a "day
pass," giving them access to the content for a limited time, but not
ownership).
Editing: None.
Sharing: Embed in other sites or blogs.
Verdict: Google Video requires a "video verification" process,
where your submission is reviewed to ensure it conforms to Google’s technical
standards and legal policies. This process "may take several
days," so check back for an update.
You Tube
Appeal: The video-sharing site everyone’s already
heard of. Mindshare-winner by a mile.
Interface: Tabbed pages feature ratings, favorites, flagging, tagging,
and commenting. Create playlists, subscribe to other’s uploads, subscribe
to tags. The player only features a mute button (rather than level
control), and full-screening the video opens a new window and starts playback
over.
Editing: None.
Sharing: Embed in other websites, including Friendster, eBay, Blogger,
MySpace.
Verdict: Easy to use, no major issues. Decent video quality, audio
sounds compressed. Video embedded in Wordpress fine (but was
off-center). But: No progress bar for uploading. Fairly
lengthy "processing" delay before you (or anyone else) can watch your
video.
Originally from Technophilia by