Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Wired: Yahoo Video Mimics YouTube

Expand Messages
  • Anne Walk
    yes. it s those limitations that I am referring to when I say that it s preferrable. until it actually impedes user s in great numbers from viewing content,
    Message 1 of 11 , May 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      yes. it's those limitations that I am referring to when I say that it's preferrable. until it actually impedes user's in great numbers from viewing content, though, i dont' think it will have any great impact on sites like youtube.

      as a viewer, i don't own a tivo, an ipod, psp or a cellphone so it doesn't much matter to me how the content is presented (although i absolutely can't stand autostart vids!)

      as a producer, however, i do care whether or not my videos are rss compatible and i prefer that they are. videobloggers might be more inclined to care about rss. i don't think it's particularly important to large numbers of video uploaders though...not yet, anyway.

      many video hosting sites don't seem to be too concerned about it either and, imagine, they won't be until their uploaders/viewers demand it.

      On 5/31/06, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> wrote:
      > rss is definitely preferable to those who use it. unfortunately, the number of people using it is still quite low. i don't know if the majority of people watching online videos are concerned enough about it for rss formats to have an impact. i have three teenaged kids who are well aware of rss but opt for youtube instead. i have no idea why.


      I don't necessarily think RSS is "preferrable" -- its just different.
      With YouTube and other video portal sites you can browse around easier.
      But, you don't get the same ability to syndicate. So for creators it
      will eventually be limiting until YouTube and the other sites begin to
      think beyond the web.

      RSS will be built into your Tivo, iPod, cell phone, etc... many sites
      and services today already support it and its only a matter of time
      before it becomes pretty much de facto.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is that RSS is not only about end users
      viewing stuff in a News Reader application even though that is how
      many of us experience it today. RSS is also used as connective tissue
      behind the scenes of many current and future web services.

      -Josh


      On 5/31/06, Anne Walk <desperatelymeasured@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >    i think that the size of the viewership will be a big determinating factor in choosing one of these embedded player hosting sites to host video on...and i think that the size of the viewership is largely determined by the type of content permitted at the site.
      >
      > i think that youtube is big because most of their viewership is there for porn/dancing girl and funny videos (bootlegged content or otherwise). people who want their videos viewed in the largest arena will choose a site like youtube to host it.
      >
      > if yahoo has a policy that is as open as youtube, they will be able to compete. otherwise, they will never get the numbers that youtube generates. somehow, i'm not so sure that yahoo will be as open though. they have had run-ins in the past with chat.
      >
      > i know that yahoo chat lost huge numbers when they clamped down on chat rooms and closed user rooms.
      >
      > i'm sure there will be some that will prefer to be hosted by other sites but, unless yahoo opens up in terms of content, i dont' see a mass exodus. mind you, i saw that they are also going to be a directory for off-site content. if they don't censor that content, it might help boost the number of viewers. hard to say what impact that would have on those looking for hosting services.
      >
      > as for spam...is it "spam" to put your vids up on all hosting services or is it spreading your content around? not sure about the use of the word spam in this context...
      >
      > rss is definitely preferable to those who use it. unfortunately, the number of people using it is still quite low. i don't know if the majority of people watching online videos are concerned enough about it for rss formats to have an impact. i have three teenaged kids who are well aware of rss but opt for youtube instead. i have no idea why.
      >
      >
      >
      > On 5/31/06, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      >  > Maybe "spam vloggers" will emerge and start posting the same video to
      > > all of the free services to gain maximum exposure?
      >
      > I think this already exists.
      > Not sure if all of it is spam (some of it is), but I know people try
      > to "seed" videos in many of these clip sharing communities.
      >
      > Ultimately, it will be your RSS feed that should syndicate your videos
      > into all these various services or personalized aggregators, etc... or
      > so i'd like to think.
      >
      > -Josh
      >
      >
      > On 5/31/06, LeanBackVids.com <leanbackvids@...> wrote:
      > > An article was just posted on  Wired.com about Yahoo Video and how they
      > > are going to start hosting user videos (aka "mimic YouTube").
      > >
      > > http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,71043-0.html
      > >
      > > What will drive the average user to post their video to one service
      > > over the other?  I assume each will have very similar feature sets.
      > > If a user ultimately wants to embed the video somewhere else, will it
      > > even matter where they host?
      > >
      > > Maybe "spam vloggers" will emerge and start posting the same video to
      > > all of the free services to gain maximum exposure?
      > >
      > > --
      > > Matt
      > > http://www.vlogmap.org
      > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/vlogmap
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >  > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >  Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > Anne Walk
      > http://loadedpun.com
      >
      >
      >      SPONSORED LINKS
      >                       Fireant                                       Individual                                       Typepad
      >                       Use                                       Explains
      >
      >    ________________________________
         YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >
      >  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
      >
      >
      >  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >  videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >
      >    ________________________________


      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
      Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
      http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/







      --
      Anne Walk
      http://loadedpun.com
    • LeanBackVids.com
      ... Just look at what the normal user experience is... A user sees only a small orange button that says RSS or XML or the square radio wave icon. None of
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Anne Walk"
        <desperatelymeasured@...> wrote:
        >
        > videobloggers might be more inclined to care about rss.
        > i don't think it's particularly important to large
        > numbers of video uploaders though...not yet, anyway.

        Just look at what the normal user experience is... A user sees only a
        small orange button that says "RSS" or "XML" or the square radio wave
        icon. None of those are obvious to an RSS virgin. Most people browse
        with IE, so even when they do get curious and click the icon, they are
        taken to a page that is just code (hieroglyphics to most).

        It is an absolutely horrible user experience. Where does it tell the
        user to download an aggregator? How do they know to copy/paste the
        URL into the aggregator?

        I've been a web developer for 10 years and I was completely baffled
        the first time I tried to use RSS. (Granted, that was when Bloglines
        first came out and few sites had a feed.)

        As for the video uploaders, "most" are using YouTube and/or MySpace.
        Both those sites don't promote their feeds very well, which I think is
        a sorry attempt to horde content. They rely on advertising, which
        means they want people to visit the site and not syndicate it in an
        aggregator.

        I assume RSS adoption will increase when the masses upgrade to Vista.
        http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/reference/rss/

        --
        Matt
        http://www.vlogmap.org
        http://feeds.feedburner.com/vlogmap
      • Mike Meiser
        On the subject of Youtube and those like yahoo who would follow in their footsteps. These sites have broken it down to lthe least common denominator... nothing
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On the subject of Youtube and those like yahoo who would follow in their footsteps. These sites have broken it down to lthe least common denominator... nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd. It's the race to the bottom as it weee. All the superficial characteristics of web 2.0 without the substance, the principals, the ideals.

          People will post their media at these places simply for the instant audience. But there is nothing more. It's disposable culture. We musn't loose site that it's all throw away media. It'll all be gone in a year or two, five? who knows... but do you really expect youtube to host it all for free for very long? And when they're done milking your media for it's value and ditch it, it'll be gone, because noone will have been able to remix it, revlog it, or host it anywhere.  Unlike great web2.0 services which drive traddic to the community (i.e. digg.com) all traffic is inbound to youtube... Other services drive traffic to the community... youtube sucks traffic and the media up. It's no community player. It is the center of it's own universe, and when it ends gone so too will be all that culture. But heh, maybe we can rent it from them on DVD eh?

          But don't let this stop you from using youtube. In fact we should use it. By all means post to it. Why not, it's free, but keep in mind it's got no archivability, no portability, that it's contrary to remix culture... so post to your vlog first... then use youtube strategicly, smartly, evilly, the way they intend to use you. Post media purely to drive traffic to your vlog. Use it to advertise for yourself. Put the your shit on youtube, put the equity and time and good stuff onto your vlog.

          Use them like they would use you. Companies that try to pull one over on their customers never last for long, they underestimate their customers. The only way to deal with such business practices is to use them the way they would use you. Take it for what it's worth, if it's worth anything, and throw it away when you're done. I ussually stand contrary to this disposable culture, especially when talking physical goods, but this is virtual goods for one, no lasting damage other to our own culture, besides there's just no other way than to take youtube for all it's worth.

          Youtube is for shit, it stands contrary to everything we stand for... it's popularity is unnerving, but did we really think we were going to change everything overnight? That people would buy all our principals of interoperability, portability, remixing, archivability, and so much more. This crazed rush to get video on the web has proven the time was right, we should applaud ourselves for our part in igniting that, but it doesn't disprove the value of our principals and we should be vocal about it. Don't be afraid to speak your mind even about those sellouts like Boingboing.net that have sold out their audience and their creative commons and remix culture principals in promoting such crap. This service that locks up and monopolizes the creativity of it's own participants.

          This overnight mediatization of the web has happened so quick that youtubes and other businesses who's halmark is their greed and/or their web 1.0 business strategies like lockin have had the opportunity to stear the masses into new corrals, new box canyons of media. like the .com boom the land is now to fertile for those with quick dollars in their eyes to not jump in. But it doesn't mean this is where it'll stand. Youtube has one the first fight for market share. They still haven't made a dollar... let's stick it to them, so that when they weild their lock-in like a weapon we're ready with our message, our services and our principals like interoperability, openess, and portability to make converts out their customers, previously naive to their games.


          A little ancedote... back when I first got into the web in 1993-1997 we all had such high expectations for the internet... academicly speaking...  we had no reason to think the web browser and web page would be "it".... Mosaic, the first web browser was just another application, much like youtube. People were working with far more interactive technologies like flash... technologies like VRML for creating 3D worlds... very much like the Metaverse invisioned in Neil Stephensons' Snow Crash... except for practical issues...  some of us dreamed of rich channels of media... rivalling TV and radio.... then the innovation sort of seemed to stop and slowly became fixated on this stupid most boring of metaphors... "pages" aka. "web pages".

          Basically we were all sad that things seemed to have reverted a little back to the most basic and boring metaphor of the last 500 years. We all sighed and gave up on or vrml, and watched as multimedia formats like flash were relegated to the sidelines. The world became fixated on the page. Completely unspecial.... but to think we'd failed would have been criminal... as the saying (admitedly my saying) goes... the world of the future will be nothing that you expected and yet so much more. 

          We could not have foreseen the depth that the page metaphor would hold... like social networks, how it would fundamentally alter culture, bottom up, the long tail, social capital, change politics, media... What about things like google maps and it's API, how that sort of interoperability would launch a whole new geographic landscape of data, better in manny ways than our silly VRML... The point is we often expect to much, and confuse the surface, the asthetic, the form, with the really profound underlyling changes. 

          The hallmark of this era won't be necissarily a web beyond "web pages"... a mediatized web of streams of audio and video and photos.... if it is only one thing... it's that fundamental simple idea that more people will take a more active part in creating the world we live in by following their passions and interests. That simple concept will change the world, and it likely has very little to do with the success or failure of youtube. The idea is the seed that will live on wether all these services crash and burn, wether all our ideals and principals seemed lost or not. All we can do is yell them from our vlogs, and speak our mind and share them. Be bold, preserve them, make them known.

          Soo call it the doppler effect, call it "the more things change the more they stay the same" or "the world doesn't change overnight"....  What I keep reminding myself is all this isn't going to be a two year thing... and when this bubble bursts we'll have barely scratched the surface.I keep telling myself the bubble doesn't matter again and again.  Whether in the near term all the world is a Youtube, a gooogle video, a Yahoo video or some other walled garden. Ultimately it's change is a slow process of attrition. It will continue to where down walls over decades or centuries.


          Personally my theory on how this stupid bubble will burst is this.... 

          Sites like youtube and others will become really popular, they will sell out the superficial promise to the highest bidders (big media) as either endless advertising or other 1.0 business plans as ussual. People will rapidly forget what promise they saw in these services that seem no better, and in fact worse than their cable TV with 25 minutes of real programming and 35 minutes of ads in an hour. The bubble will then deflate, perhaps even purst as VC and web 1.0 companies of boom past (microsoft, yahoo, google ebay) pull out of the sector and stop buying up startups.  The world on some large superficial level will seem to return to normal untill in a couple more years, when momentum from OUR space, which never really stopped will build around some new idea, which is really just the same as the ideas and principals we have now...  probably do some successful service which finally gets it right.... then the VC's and investors of all sorts will take another wack at it, another slice and maybe get a little closer to truely changing cultural perceptions. It's a rough process. Sometimes even when you've got it nailed it can take years and years for the market to swing in your favor. Ever hear of the term "before it's time". It's been said of thousands and thousands of companies., the trends in historic industries from computing to transportation are full of examples. It's great fun to study them too. Why didn't video conferencign ever catch on? Will it? What's going on with "smart cars"? How did apple change the world but almost go bankrupt to microsofts success in their market, the personal computer? better yet why are they returning triumpantly now?

          In order to not get carried away with the breaking surf, the bubbles... and the bursting, it's important to study the history and at times just say 'screw all that' remember your principals, and then be vicious in your pursuit of what's important to you, using those bubble makers like youtube if what matters is building an audience. Use those ridding the wave as they would use you and putting all your real equity into something you own and can build in over time... your vlog. Use youtube as cheap advertising. That's exactly what they're using you for.

          That said I'm a huge fan of Blip, and the new Vimeo too. They support all the core elements and principals such as interoperability, syndication, portability, downloadability, remixing. I still haven't tried all Vimeo's features, but it would appear they've got it where it counts, they're the closest thing to a "flickr of video" yet. They have the community (idiots might call it audience or worse consumers), the social functions, and the interoperability with things like syndication and other services. I hope both blip and vimeo do great, to of my favorite picks right now. Not to exclude anyone else, i just can't give all 150  (at last count) services credit.

          -Mike

          Disclaimer: fingers of fury, no proof read, barely a spell check. Sorry.



          On 6/1/06, LeanBackVids.com < leanbackvids@...> wrote:
          --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Anne Walk"
          <desperatelymeasured@...> wrote:
          >
          > videobloggers might be more inclined to care about rss.
          > i don't think it's particularly important to large
          > numbers of video uploaders though...not yet, anyway.

          Just look at what the normal user experience is... A user sees only a
          small orange button that says  "RSS" or "XML" or the square radio wave
          icon.  None of those are obvious to an RSS virgin.  Most people browse
          with IE, so even when they do get curious and click the icon, they are
          taken to a page that is just code (hieroglyphics to most).

          It is an absolutely horrible user experience.  Where does it tell the
          user to download an aggregator?  How do they know to copy/paste the
          URL into the aggregator?

          I've been a web developer for 10 years and I was completely baffled
          the first time I tried to use RSS. (Granted, that was when Bloglines
          first came out and few sites had a feed.)

          As for the video uploaders, "most" are using YouTube and/or MySpace.
          Both those sites don't promote their feeds very well, which I think is
          a sorry attempt to horde content.  They rely on advertising, which
          means they want people to visit the site and not syndicate it in an
          aggregator.

          I assume RSS adoption will increase when the masses upgrade to Vista.
          http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/reference/rss/

          --
          Matt
          http://www.vlogmap.org
          http://feeds.feedburner.com/vlogmap






          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
          You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.
          http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
          --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


          Yahoo! Groups Links

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
               videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




        • greg
          Mike, a standing ovation for your fingers of fury tirade! (i write this as I m about to post some stuff to the ominous screw- YouTube... littered with my
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Mike,
            a standing ovation for your 'fingers of fury' tirade!
            (i write this as I'm about to post some stuff to the ominous screw-
            YouTube... littered with my logos, to bring people to my blog...
            fight fire with fire)....
            cheers!
            Greg
            http://eklektro.blogspot.com
          • Michael Sullivan
            greg, love your eklektro btw. everyone should check it out. http://eklektro.net/ ... -- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              greg, love your eklektro btw.
              everyone should check it out. http://eklektro.net/


              On 6/1/06, greg < w600@...> wrote:
              Mike,
              a standing ovation for your 'fingers of fury' tirade!
              (i write this as I'm about to post some stuff to the ominous screw-
              YouTube... littered with my logos, to bring people to my blog...
              fight fire with fire)....
              cheers!
              Greg
              http://eklektro.blogspot.com


              ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
              Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
              http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
              --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


              Yahoo! Groups Links

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                   videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






              --
              Sull
              http://vlogdir.com
              http://SpreadTheMedia.org
            • greg
              Wow, i just posted a vid to YouTube, and i can t believe the drop in quality! I made an .mp4 using H264 in Quicktime 7.1, 320x240, 550kbps vid and 80 audio...
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Wow, i just posted a vid to YouTube, and i can't believe the drop in
                quality!
                I made an .mp4 using H264 in Quicktime 7.1, 320x240, 550kbps vid and
                80 audio...
                its a short video, so its only 5.7mb....
                Whatever codec they convert it to (?) looks awful and washed out...
                certainly larger than 320x240...
                So there must be a way to get better quality on YouTube...
                by uploading a movie saved in a certain codec or size to begin with?
                (so the double compression doesn't totally destroy your data)...
                They have a limit of 100mb per video, so hmmm....
                Anybody have any ideas?
                And what about Yahoo's upload specs / codecs?
                thanks all!
                Greg
              • Joshua Kinberg
                That s interesting. I guess its best to upload uncompressed, or compress as little as possible if you re going to upload to a service that converts and
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  That's interesting. I guess its best to upload uncompressed, or
                  compress as little as possible if you're going to upload to a service
                  that converts and re-compresses the videos.

                  -Josh


                  On 6/1/06, greg <w600@...> wrote:
                  > Wow, i just posted a vid to YouTube, and i can't believe the drop in
                  > quality!
                  > I made an .mp4 using H264 in Quicktime 7.1, 320x240, 550kbps vid and
                  > 80 audio...
                  > its a short video, so its only 5.7mb....
                  > Whatever codec they convert it to (?) looks awful and washed out...
                  > certainly larger than 320x240...
                  > So there must be a way to get better quality on YouTube...
                  > by uploading a movie saved in a certain codec or size to begin with?
                  > (so the double compression doesn't totally destroy your data)...
                  > They have a limit of 100mb per video, so hmmm....
                  > Anybody have any ideas?
                  > And what about Yahoo's upload specs / codecs?
                  > thanks all!
                  > Greg
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.