Results tagged “Google Video” from kwc blog

Google may own both Google Video and Youtube, but that doesn't mean that the two have moved towards parity, yet. I tried uploading my Michael Chabon book talk clips to both services last night. I tried:

  • Google Video's Web upload form
  • Google Video's Desktop uploader
  • Youtube's Web upload form

The results are clear: Youtube wins for both reliability and speed. The Google Video Web uploader failed three times on me and all three failures occurred after almost an hour of waiting. Youtube's Web upload form was 3/3 and the videos were ready for viewing immediately after they finish. This was unlike Google Video's Desktop uploader, which took several hours to 'process' the videos after the uploads finish, and the uploads were much slower than Youtube. The Desktop uploader also has a strange behavior in which it will reject punctuation marks in your video's filename. As a software programmer, I can't think of any reason why this is necessary -- it would be trivial to remap the characters, as the Web uploader must have to do.

Another plus for Youtube: the Web upload form tracks the upload progress so you know if it is still working.

Google Video improves?

|

In my original YouTube vs. Google Video test, YouTube came out way ahead. The one thing that was really killer for me is that Google took days, in one case weeks, to 'verify' a video that I had uploaded. The need to wait an extended period was so... anti-Web. There were also plenty of other features missing, like tagging, commenting, and rating -- features that help generate a community around a pool of videos.

The Google Video team has seemed to take note of YouTube's feature lead and has sent out a mass e-mail detailing all their new features. Everything listed here has been available on YouTube, which goes to show how deficient GVideo was, but now, in a bulleted list at least, Google Video is looking more on par with YouTube. One area they might surpass YouTube is something they haven't released yet: sharing in ad revenue for the videos that you post. Whether this is text ads hosted on the side of your video or video ads before/after your clips, I have no clue. While the opportunity to make money off little videos is attractive, I'm less excited by the idea that I might have to watch more video ads (note: there is no indication that Google is going to do this type of ad, I'm just specuating).

Here's a list of the new features (in their own words, as I have neither the videos nor the time to try this out): * Instant gratification: A web-based video uploader for immediate upload and playback * Share your video with the world, or maybe just your friends: Single-click video posting to popular blog services, including MySpace and Blogger * Get involved!: Now add ratings, tags, and comments for all videos * Zeit-what? Now you can see a "Top 100" list, updated daily, that shows what people are watching * It's "Football", not "Soccer": Google Video now exists in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Poland, and the Netherlands

YouTube vs. Google Video

|

I recently had the chance to try out YouTube vs. Google Video as a video publisher. I had some clips from the Tour of California that I wanted to put online and my DSL doesn't do the best job hosting video.

It's hard not to notice the rise of YouTube. It seems that everytime I see a video link I end up on that site and they certainly seem to have the attention of NBC, which is sending cease and desist after cease and desist for SNL videos (is SNL officially no longer lame?). I've run across Google Video much less frequently. I wasn't sure if this was due to laxer policies on the part of YouTube in allowing content like Oscar clips or if YouTube was superior in some manner.

I believe I now have the answer: YouTube is far, far superior. Google Video does have a better video uploader, but that's about its only advantage. For my test I uploaded the same Tour of California clip to both services. Google Video took over 24 hours to 'verify' the video. I still have a video that I uploaded on February 21st (two weeks ago) that is in the 'verification' process. Time it took YouTube to post my video online: instant. 24 hours is just a mind-boggling long time to have to wait, let alone two weeks. As far as I can tell, Google Video doesn't even tell you when your video is ready, so you have to keep revisiting your video status page.

YouTube also has three features that Google Video does not: tagging, commenting, visitor counting, and rating. I don't care much for ratings, but tagging makes it easier for people to find my videos, commenting is nice for feedback, and visitor counting tells me whether or not it was worth my time even posting the video.

Both services seem to degrade the quality of the original video. The cycling videos I uploaded weren't of the greatest quality as they were shot with an ELPH, but they were definitely more intelligible than these:

Nevertheless, if you don't have to server to host the video and you want to get the video online to share with others, I highly recommend YouTube as the route to go.