Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

YouTube's Growing Competition 139

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube's Growing Competition

Comments Filter:
  • The best clone (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:33AM (#15910469)
    http://www.pornotube.com/ [pornotube.com]

    Yup, the best Youtube like site.
  • pornotube (Score:2, Interesting)

    by llZENll ( 545605 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:34AM (#15910475)
    http://www.pornotube.com/ [pornotube.com]

    Waves goodbye to your bandwidth.
  • Shocking (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pr0nbot ( 313417 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:36AM (#15910488)
    In a shocking development, all of the sites mentioned in the slashdot article are working just fine... except pornotube.com.
  • by Mr Z ( 6791 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:42AM (#15910548) Homepage Journal

    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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrAndrews ( 456547 ) <mcm@NOSpaM.1889.ca> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:43AM (#15910553) Homepage
    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.
  • by mrxak ( 727974 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:43AM (#15910555)
    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:The best clone (Score:2, Interesting)

    by althalus1969 ( 680826 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:47AM (#15910593)
    na, xtube.com is miles better
  • by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:48AM (#15910596) Homepage
    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.
  • Re:Google video? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis&ubasics,com> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:51AM (#15910619) Homepage Journal
    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
  • by Whiney Mac Fanboy ( 963289 ) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @12:08PM (#15910739) Homepage Journal
    but brand recognition is whats a winner here.

    Are you sure? It a recognised brand for content uploaders, but they tend to be better informed as far as finding somewhere they can upload free video to.

    As far as content consumers go, the vast majority of people who visit youtube do so (IMO) via a link from an email. They'll click on that link whether its to youtube or some other generic content hosting site.

    I am reminded of iPod killing headlines.

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

    A better analogy would be altavista, jeeves, etc pre-google.
  • by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @12:11PM (#15910760) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by shawnmchorse ( 442605 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @12:18PM (#15910822) Homepage
    The sad state of affairs is that, of all the possible video players, Flash is the most ubiquitous and easy to support right now. At any rate, there's nothing inherently low-quality about Flash video. It's just that YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites all want to use as little bandwidth as possible so the videos are encoded at low-quality bitrates (around 250 kbps video as I recall, with 64 kbps mono sound). If you have a decent source video and double that bitrate, the encoded Flash video actually looks quite good.
  • by merryberry ( 974454 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @12:21PM (#15910843)
    To start a you tube you will need:
    FFMPEG http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/ [mplayerhq.hu]: for video conversion
    FlowPlayer http://flowplayer.sourceforge.net/howto.html [sourceforge.net]: displaying flash video
    or Flash Video Player http://jeroenwijering.com/?item=Flash_Video_Player [jeroenwijering.com]
    FFMPEG-PHP http://ffmpeg-php.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]: If php is used a nice extension for getting screen shots of videos, not necessary though
    flvtool2 http://rubyforge.org/projects/flvtool2/ [rubyforge.org]: so you can seek though the created flash file
    Then all you need is leverage framework or cms in php, or phython, or something and you are done. (well sort of!)
  • by Whiney Mac Fanboy ( 963289 ) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @01:36PM (#15911416) Homepage Journal
    I haven't specifically tried what you're asking for - but I suggest trying the appropriate firefox plugin [mozilla.org] and swftools [swftools.org]
  • by remove office ( 871398 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @02:04PM (#15911660) Homepage
    CNN's little project is actually powered by Blip.

    CNN has been "reporting" on what's going on on YouTube on a fairly regular basis in the afternoon, sometimes more than twice. They're segments that basically consist of hooking a computer up to their video feed with some young guy saying "so as you can really see, YouTube is buzzing over this it's just crazy."

    The only time I've seen them do it in a way that it seemed like a good idea, was when they were covering the Israeli-Hezbollah war recently during which they showed some clips taken by YouTube users living in both Israel and Lebanon. It was a cool idea, but unfortunately most of the clips sucked and I'd already seen them on YouTube anyways.
  • by MsGeek ( 162936 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @05:00PM (#15913763) Homepage Journal
    ...even when they are technically public domain.

    You know all those Warner and Fleischer cartoons that have been sold for years on crappy VHS tapes at the local 99 Cent Only store? Guess what. Warner gets pissy about some of their later cartoons being posted to YouTube, and then YouTube pulls EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. Even the cartoons that entered the public domain.

    YouTube seems to be deathly afraid of suffering the same fate as the old Napster so they have been very quick to pull stuff. They also have a "three strikes" policy about copyright infringement. Three videos get cashiered for possible copyright infringement and your account gets pulled.

    John Kricfalusi, the creator of Ren & Stimpy, had his YouTube account pulled [blogspot.com] because he posted short snippets of Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies cartoons that had passed into the public domain.

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...