Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Top Video Sharing Sites Reviewed 146

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the who-is-doing-it-right dept.
prostoalex writes "Digital Video Guru is running a comparison of 10 digital video sharing sites - EyeSpot Beta, Google Video Beta, Grouper Beta, Jumpcut Beta, OurMedia, Revver Beta, VideoEgg, Vimeo, vSocial and YouTube. Currently, based on traffic, YouTube is the leader of the pack (more heavily visited MSN Video does not support user-uploaded videos), but Digital Video Guru blog awards Vimeo for fastest uploads, JumpCut for editing, and YouTube for community features."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Top Video Sharing Sites Reviewed

Comments Filter:
  • Good pick. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by O'Laochdha (962474) on Saturday April 08, 2006 @09:57PM (#15093425) Journal
    The thing I like about YouTube is that they have their videos as standard shockwave files...I can't get most other sites to run on my browser/OS.
  • Re:Lame (Score:4, Insightful)

    by casuist99 (263701) on Saturday April 08, 2006 @10:08PM (#15093463) Homepage Journal
    I agree - it would be much nicer to not have to install any video playing software in order to watch videos online... why *can't* they play in my text-based browser, afterall?

    Seriously, though it's superior to AOL video or video from CNN that require you to have WMV support in your browser - and despite Flip4mac, that's still not an easy feat in OSX. I'm a huge supporter of platform-independent video, and flash player is at least a decent alternative towards that end.

  • Re:Lame (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Deagol (323173) on Saturday April 08, 2006 @10:23PM (#15093497) Homepage
    Seeing as how I run FreeBSD amd64, I'd bitch if they didn't have a format that wasn't supported by 64-bit clean open source codecs. I don't run 32-bit or linux binary compatability, which rules out quite a bit for me. No Sun Java (which is stupid -- they support PPC, UltraSparc, and Win64), no OpenOffice, no Flash (which I refused to install when I ran 32-bit anyway), and no win32 codecs for mplayer. :) At least I can play the AVI's from Google's video site.

    Buy why so many sites don't default to mpeg or mpeg2 is totally beyond me. Standards, people -- standards! Open formats, like Theora, would be even better.

  • by ImaNihilist (889325) on Saturday April 08, 2006 @10:32PM (#15093525)
    YouTube is great because it's ad free, and everything loads fast. That's why people like it. Too bad that YouTube doesn't have a revenue model yet. The only reason they stay afloat is because some company keeps GIVING them millions of dollars. Some estimates would suggest that YouTube costs $750,000+ per month. A company can only operate at a loss for so long.

    Eventually their cash flow will stop and they'll start pilling on the ads. Adwords, pop-ups, those annoying flash "timer" ads where you have to sit at a screen for 30 seconds, and ads before you play each video. Sure, they'll probably add a "premium" section to the site where you pay $9.99 a month and get to view the site ad free, but how many people are going to pay for that?

    I remember when Atom Films and iFilm where big. Once the ads start poppin', the people start droppin'. And as the Pringles commercial goes, "Once you pop, you just can't stop." That's pretty much the motto for all these "free" content/service sites. It's great while it's ad free and everything loads fast, but once that ends...the party is over.

    Google Video at least has some staying power. At least with Google I can save some videos in .mp4 format. Personally, I hate any site that doesn't let me save the video to my HDD. Since YouTube doesn't sell ads, I'm not sure I understand the "point" of making you go to their site everytime you want to view a video. They might as well just let you download it, and save themselves the bandwidth cost.
  • by mal0rd (323126) on Saturday April 08, 2006 @10:45PM (#15093557) Homepage
    This review isn't worth your time. It didn't even mention that http://video.google.com/ [google.com] allows you to download the videos in standard formats and youtude only allows you to play the videos with a flash player.

    Basically, if you are using youtube and you come across a video you like, it's not possible to save it. That makes it almost worthless.
  • by hackwrench (573697) <hackwrench@hotmail.com> on Saturday April 08, 2006 @11:10PM (#15093615) Homepage Journal
    Rereading everything:
    You seem to have some definition of the word "use" that is different from everyone elses, or maybe just how the clauses work together. Sending a threatening letter alluding to violations is using the DMCA. If that is enough to result in the site being shut down because the site owner can't afford a legal battle with the MPAA, then that is using the DMCA to shut down a site.

    Also, I support the notion that it is funny (though not exaggerated sufficiently to work well) and will post my variation in another subthread.

    What I had before:
    Yeah, it'd be nice if every act of perjury got prosecuted, but they aren't and to the best of my knowledge the MPAA and RIAA are well aware of that fact and use it to their advantage.
  • Re:Recompression (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Achromatic1978 (916097) <<robert> <at> <chromablue.net>> on Sunday April 09, 2006 @06:01AM (#15094374)
    Music video is produced as a promotional product for free distribution

    To quote you, "Oh bullshit". I'd love to see you ask for, and get, one of the major labels videos in HD format, for you to "distribute", for free. But your work? Oh no, that's "special". The music video isn't a work of art, it's an ad. But your work is all deep and meaningful and requires explanation.

    Utter crap. I used to work at a boutique software firm. They all had dialup modems provided by work, and by mutual agreement, people disconnected their home during the day and dialed up a dozen+ simultaneous lines to a warez bbs, to leech. But talk to them about people warezing /their/ software, and they'd be all for burning down houses and lynching.

    You know the difference though? They happily admitted to hypocrisy. You on the other hand are living in a world of denial where you've pretentiously determined other people's work isn't "art", yet yours is.

  • Re:Recompression (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09, 2006 @07:16AM (#15094473)
    Amusingly, the one thing that looks worse than crappy recompressed video is streaming video. Seen your site on a modem?

    The only reason to stream stuff is (illusion of) control, don't pretend otherwise.
  • by kzinti (9651) on Sunday April 09, 2006 @09:47AM (#15094771) Homepage Journal
    People like me who make their own videos hate YouTube because it recompresses the videos into FLV format at an extremely low bit rate. It also renders stereo audio tracks down to mono, probably also at a reduced bit rate. All this transcoding is why a video from YouTube loads so fast, but it also means that the video looks and sounds significantly worse than the original. Read more about it here: YouTube and the Flash video format [chron.com].

Modeling paged and segmented memories is tricky business. -- P.J. Denning

Working...