YouTube's Growing Competition

bart_scriv writes "BusinessWeek looks at YouTube's rapidly growing imitators and questions the site's long-term viability. In addition to the competition, YouTube continues to face problems caused by its reliance on copyrighted material; the site's popularity is service- (rather than emotion-) based, which makes it a ripe target for anyone that might replicate and improve the service. From the article: 'YouTube's own challengers are advancing at a rapid rate. AOL is re-engineering its video site to mirror YouTube's success, and CNN is launching CNN Exchange, which will house user-contributed video features. Then there are sites like Eefoof.com, Panjea.com, Revver and Blip.TV, which share up to 50 percent of ad page revenue with the creator of the videos. Others like Dabble.com (currently in beta) sort through all video hosting sites (like YouTube and its competition) for search content, while specialty video sites like Pornotube concentrate on one point of interest.'"

Dvorak

No sooner does he endorse it or the end draws near....

pornotube

http://www.pornotube.com/ [pornotube.com]

Waves goodbye to your bandwidth.

Re:pornotube

Wow, great place to... see a bunch of guys... naked :\

The past is prelude

This happens with every Internet advancement. People proclaimed the end of EBay with time, but it is as strong as ever because they adjust to the situation better than most companies (buying PayPal, partnering with the USPS, et cetera). Other examples are the search engine wars and e-mail. When GMail blew the top off of wimpy e-mail capacities, the competitors were quick to match it.

Something important to note is that one user can upload videos to any or all of the top video sites. YouTube et al will have to offer some incentive for a user to stay with their service for the long term.

Re:The past is prelude

The big difference between eBay and YouTube is how it is used. You go to eBay and bid on items. The more items available, the more likely you are to go there. eBay has built a community. YouTube does have a community but its biggest boon comes from embedding videos into other pages, especially blogs. That can be easily replaced wholesale by similar technology and not many people would notice. Right now YouTube (much like GMail) offers a feature set at a price point that is not offered by many other providers. When (or perhaps if) other providers do catch up, it will be a lot harder for YouTube to stay on top than it was for eBay to stay on top.

There's one more factor there

There's yet another factor remaining, so I'm going to just wait and see. Maybe Youtube will do just fine without any further incentives.

The factor is: most me-too clones suck. There are a lot of PHBs... err... MBAs out there who seem to think that jumping on a bandwagon means doing the absolute crappiest job, with the cheapest unskilled monkeys off the street. And that you can just make up for that by adding some "features" that are just a PHBs ego trip, as opposed to even trying to understand what the market wants. (Think of all those dot-com era "features" like adding blinking text, or bright blue text on a green background.)

It's not just Google or Ebay. Look at the iPod or iTunes too, at that. (And disclaimer, I'm not even an iPod or Apple fan, but I can still be disgusted with _stupid_ imitation when I see it.)

E.g., you'd think that making yet another HDD based media player would be an easy enough proposition, no? Yet it took half a decade for people to even begin getting their act straight. Some were as big as a freaking brick (I still remember an Archos which was _literally_ as big as a 5" HDD), some had a nightmarish user interface (I'm looking at you, Creative), some insisted on ruining a perfectly good MP3 by re-converting it to their own proprieatry lossy compression in 64kbps (Sony, you suck), etc. And yet paradoxically a lot of them were actually more expensive than a similar capacity iPod. And when they tried adding a feature of their own, even one which might be useful in its own right, like video playback, it came at the expense of being badly implemented _and_ ending up costing more than a good laptop.

Ditto for iTunes. It never ceases to amaze me how many bad ideas people try to cram into copying that... badly. Ranging from the functionality of their program or web site, to the music selection, to some hare-brained ideas like, basically, "I know! People would love to pay for the privilege of indentured servitude to us! I bet everyone just dreams of a service where we hold their whole music collection hostage, and can remotely render it useless if they even think of stopping paying monthly." I mean, seriously, wtf? Who there thought that blatant extortion is a feature?

Those are just two random examples. I could give more, but it's already too long a rant anyway.

The moral is: don't underestimate how crappy a job some people can do when they try to copy something they don't even understand. I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of PHBs out there managed to get even copying Youtube wrong. It may seem like a clear and straightforward idea, that noone can possibly get wrong, but then the same could have been said about everything else which did get copied all wrong.

Clones are one thing...

but brand recognition is whats a winner here.

I am reminded of iPod killing headlines.

Re:Clones are one thing...

Granted it's been a while since I left the back end of the target demographic, but CNN? I somehow doubt CNN is the hip, happening, with-it, groovy brand name the cool kids are into these days.

Re:Clones are one thing...

And with names like these... Eefoof.com, Panjea.com, Revver and Blip.TV

YouTube's brand recognition will remain just fine. Those are some of the worst web site names I've ever heard. Randomly pounding the keyboard would create site names that are easier to remember.

Re:Clones are one thing...

Brand recognition isn't everything. With sites like Truveo [truveo.com] and Blinkx TV [blinkx.tv], you can just search through all the various video websites out there, no matter what site they're on.

Re:Clones are one thing...

but brand recognition is whats a winner here.

Which is why I do all my searches on AltaVista instead of Gooble or whatever it is.

Re:Clones are one thing...

iPod users are shackled to their hardware ipod via their collection of DRM protected mp4s. No such situation exists with youtube.

If you think that iTunes Music Store files comprise even 20% of the audio files on all the iPods in the world, you're delusional.

Shocking

In a shocking development, all of the sites mentioned in the slashdot article are working just fine... except pornotube.com.

Google video?

Pretty amazing the article doesnt mention Google Video...it has to be one of Youtube's major competitors too. Has a simpler interface and better search...

Re:Google video?

Has a simpler interface and better search

And does a much better job of obeying copyright.

Youtube is only as good as its current copyright stance lasts. Once a major lawsuit from a copyright holder happens, Youtube is going to go the way of napster and MP3.com. It'll still be around, but it'll probably have to start erring on the side of too restrictive. Google started out trying to avoid copyright problems, and it will be able to defend itself against copyright lawsuits. That being the case, they won't need to have a period of time where they overreact.

Still, I hate searching in youtube. There's way to much junk in it - not unlike the internet as a whole - and they don't rate videos like google seems to be able to do. Perhaps they need to use the google rank of each video (this video is linked to by x websites using the following keywords) so better videos float to the top of searches.

As the information increases, good searching still seems to be key to a good service. Google seems to know its business. I'm waiting for them to bend their processing power to analyzing video and audio to automatically pull out people and words.

-Adam

sites like Pornotube concentrate on one point...

"while specialty video sites like Pornotube concentrate on one point of interest"

Well waking up to a Slashdot story specifically referring to what's in my pants certainly is a new one.

Brand is important

Forgive me if this is raised in TFA... but the brand that youtube now has is very important. If I want to see a video of some viral incident, or a TV trailer or clip, I turn to youtube, because I'm familiar with it. I've only just about heard of some of the others, never mind used them. Surely we saw the same effect in the search engine market... everyone knows that Google isn't necessarily the best, but I still go there first and only go somewhere else if I get no joy. The same will happen with youtube - just what can its competitiors offer that beats youtube? Easily accessible video at a good speed and with a big audience (to both see your footage and to upload their own interesting clips) is what it's for, and that's what they do well. Why go anywhere else? And naturally, the last thing I want is the fragmenting of the market, with different comaparable audiences at all sites, since then I'd have to search multiple sites instead of one.

YouTube's ... competition?

Who wants to "compete" with YouTube's "business model"?

Damn you, YouTube! I can lose money through a free video service *much* faster than you can! I can have an even sketchier idea of how to recover costs! I can make it easier for people to block ads!

Any copycat that didn't copycat flash-suckiness?

Do any of these copycats offer actual video downloads, or are all of these guys locking up content behind various streaming schemes?

Also, is there any way to bust the video out of a Flash Video player? I'd like to view some of these videos under Linux on AMD64 w/out installing the 32-bit Firefox and Flash It seems like it should be possible to extract the streaming link from the Flash file somehow and just grab the content w/out the player. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

It's not easy

The problems for YouTube aren't easy to overcome. They've got a reputation for being free and easy to use, which is really the problem. If they decided to implement a poster-frame ad at the end of each video to generate revenue (like Revver does), they'd be dealing with money, which would immediately necessitate making things harder to do. For one, the identity of the uploader would be more important, as would the possibility of Daily Show clips getting some random uploader cash. On top of that, advertisers are very picky about where their ads appear, so while they might be happy to have 10,000,000 impressions, they wouldn't be happy if half of them came from sites that were otherwise porn-related (well, not necessarily). The administrative overhead of doing ads would probably undercut its value, and the friction it creates would make people move to free-er sites.

Maybe they just need to create a second class of user, verified accounts, where they can put ads on their videos*. I figure they've got to do something soon, because their reputation is about to eat them alive.

* this assumes that single-frame ads at the end of videos are not offensive. YMMV.

World of Ends

User-created content is at the center of YouTube's web-2.0 pedigree: the idea that the "new" fluid Internet model will be based on user interaction and contribution.

It seems that this is presicely what is meant by how the internet is a World of Ends [worldofends.com]. As upload capability becomes more and more prevalent, it will become more representative of the global population. The question then becomes- Is this a good thing?

Shallow content [shallowhalmovie.com], rumormonging [snopes.com], and misinformation [venganza.org] will lead to a populace that is more popular, but will it be more true?

GoFish.com

It's much the same as YouTube. However, they also have contests and stuff. Right now they're having a contest called "America's Dream Date" where you and some "lucky" contestant get to go to Paris for a week. Also, they're giving away an iPod nano.

It's a very new site, so the content is thin, but it seems to work, much the same as YouTube.

RS

State of video technology

These sites are a good reflection on the current state of video technology. All these sites use Flash video: A low-quality proprietary solution that requires on a 3rd-party plug-in. The only one that tried using a standard video format was Google Video, and they quickly abandoned that in the beta phase because it was too complicated to support.

I think it is a sad state of affairs that these sites don't (or can't) just use embedded mp4 files. It shows how video standards have failed and a proprietary solution is more ubiquitous. This will make archival very difficult.

Youtube and the Slashdot effect?

Yeah, all the sites are working? Haha. Check out the Youtube homepage: "We're currently putting out some new features, sweeping out the cobwebs and zapping a few gremlins. We'll be back later. In the meantime, please enjoy a layman's explanation of our website..." Gremlins, my ass.

Jumpcut?

I'm a little surprised Jumpcut didn't rate mention. Granted, not everyone needs its editing features, but if you do it's hard to beat.

In other news

The instant pornotube and the other adult Youtube clones are posted to Slashdot, Youtube dives to 10 trillionth overall.

Anyone can start one.

YouTube uses a particular Flash Video Player [jeroenwijering.com] script which is out there free (Creative Commons) for non-commercial use, and licensable for commercial use. With that, some content management software (done from scratch if you're brave, otherwise just tweak the crap out of one of the zillion CMS packages out there), and an obscene amount of bandwidth, you can have your own YouTube clone up and running in no time.

speak of the devil, youtube is down...

... I want my Python clips!

And it uses that damn Flash

Grrrr.

Google still wins

Google wins. Why? They offer the option to download the damn videos.

It's the only way to get the videos on your iPod, PSP, Gameboy (via Play-Yan micro), etc...

I wish, however, that Google would get rid of that "Windows/Mac" option (AVI sucks) and replaced it with MP4 and H264.

Granted, the iPod option is H.264 but it's resized to 320x240 and the PSP is MP4 but it's resized for the PSP's widescreen which is also lower resolution than my computer display.

Competition...

An added difficulty for YouTube is that it is lacking an emotional hook to differentiate itself from a pure functional service (think iPod). Users visit YouTube not based on any of the brand's perceived values, but on its ability to give them what they want, when and how they want it.

If the website is able to give users what they want, it does create 'perceived value' or positive emotions. If now this value is put in the context of e.g. the YouTube logo, I understand this brand becomes more valueable to these users as well. At least that's what happened to me yesterday after I got to watch some videos of geriatric1927 [youtube.com].

By the way, here [friskr.com] you can compare YouTube, Google Video and 19 other video search engines. (yes, it's my website)

Maybe.

Just Maybe Senator Stevens was Right.

YouTube, XTube, PornoTube...

The internet really is a series of tubes.

But how to make money....

The real challenge here is that Youtube relying on copyrighted content to get all the click-thru's from SE's prevents it from establishing any meaningful ad revenues.... One competitor who has seemingly figured out a way around this is http://www.gofish.com/ [gofish.com] , in addition to the normal video sharing application they launched a reality-TV like show where they are directing the user-base to submit specific types of videos to compete, thereby eliminating the copyright and Adult issues that plague advertisers..

HMMMM

while specialty video sites like Pornotube concentrate on one point of interest.'" What one point of interest does pornotube concentrate on?

No Google Video???

I'm sure Google Video is far more popular than a lot of the sites mentioned in the article summary (too many things to do to read the article itself), but yet it isn't mentioned...

No Vmix?

What, no http://www.vmix.com [vmix.com] ?

Splash splash

So, I am biased because I have a friend who works here, but check out gofish [gofish.com] (ick, flash 9... oh well).

Basically, it's the only immitator that I am aware of that is actually trying to go out and do "directed" content. Like, not just a bunch of people getting drunk and filming themselves laughing at thier own idiocy, but actually saying "hey people, we're gonna have a contest so, make a video about.... THIS".

Not that I don't like the mindlessness you can see on youtube, of course. Sometimes that's fun, and necessary, but I like the idea of taking this huge pool of wasted potential and pointing it in a direction. I'm hoping someday they start going beyond the braindead dating meme and start filming political/satire themes, but that's just my own personal interest.

AOL FTW?

So, as unlikely as it sounds, AOL does have a huge ace up its sleeve. It is one of the only companies that signed a deal with its bandwidth providers which is *not tied to the amount of bandwidth* being used. It is one of the last large companies that was able to secure this kind of deal until (for obvious reasons) this kind of service is no longer offered. However, AOL is grandfathered into it from the mid 1990s.

This means that it does not face the same $1-2 million / month bandwidth charges that companies like YouTube are facing. Provided that they could build up their UnCut video (get past the AOL brand negativity, get rid of that VideoEgg uploader, make the site more user/video centric), they could have a gem in their hands.

USC 2257, HR 4472 and pornotube

With the 'secondary producer' clause of USC 2257 (strongly reinforced via HR 4472 to get around some court challenges), companies like pronotube are in a deep pile of crap (as long as they stay in the US). These laws require than anyone that distributes material 'containing lascivicious depictions of the genitals, including simulations or actual depictions of sexual activity' MUST have photo proof of the actors age at the time the video was made, as well as all aliases those actors have ever used, and any other videos or pictures they may of been in. They MUST keep these records on their business premises, indexed and ready to be searched.

The FBI then is required to go around and verify compliance on these - they are not required to give any notice, and can show up at any time.

The penalty for ANY violation? 5 years each in a federal pen!

It also requires a notice on each and every page that contains this as to the location of the records - something they are already missing.

pornotube is one FBI visit away (how long will THAT take?) from some serious pound-me-in-the-ass prison time.

Its a tube not a truck

Youtube already blew away the competition from Youtruck.com. Why would anyone think they can manage to attack a company with all the tubes!

Pickle

Why nobody mentioned pickle(www.pickle.com). This will be the winner.

No download?

Well since Google Video is the only one that lets you download videos without logging in I think I'll stick with them for now, thanks.

Does anyone know if Yahoo or Youtube lets you download even once you've logged in?

a creative clone of youtube

http://www.biku.com/ [biku.com] provides the unique online montage video editing for Internet users.

Re:The best clone

Agreed. The only site I see that can come close to competing with YouTube is a site that offers content YouTube cannot allow.

Re:The best clone

na, xtube.com is miles better

Re:The best clone

"http://www.pornotube.com/ [pornotube.com]

Yup, the best Youtube like site."

if you are a gay male, then yes. 99% of the top videos on their involve two guys..and im not even joking.