Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletters
For more info on a specific newsletter, click the title. Details will be displayed in a new window.
Computerworld Daily News (First Look and Wrap-Up)
Computerworld Blogs Newsletter
The Weekly Top 10
More E-Mail Newsletters 
John Brandon's picture
John Brandon

Web 2.0 Watcher

Feature length movies on YouTube: not a good idea

YouTube.com announced today that they'll soon start hosting feature length films -- possibly as soon as next month. CNET reported that the Google-owned viral video site, known for contributing to the budding career of talented actors like Obamagirl and Tay Zonday, is in negotiations with at least one major movie studio. Recently, the site started hosting full length TV shows and has made agreements with record labels to host music videos.  

Okay, so is the goal at YouTube to become the single source of all video content on the Internet? That's an ambitious goal, but is has several problems.

One is that the quality on YouTube is abysmal. It's about the worst on the Web and looks washed-out and choppy compared to services such as Hulu and Vimeo. YouTube has deals with companies like Netgear so that users can access the content from a media streaming device, and you can watch YouTube videos on your Android-powered phone, which makes the media companies happy: end-users can't save the content and use it on any device they want.

I hate that model. Streaming media is great for viral videos that you watch for five minutes and get a quick laugh. They work okay for music videos and short clips. But, whenever I want to actually watch a TV show or movie, I always either get the DVD, record them to DISH, or download the file from iTunes.

Long-form videos do not work well for streaming because it's important to have some flexibility: when you own the video, you can watch a portion of it on your PC, copy it to your iPod, watch the rest of it on a media streaming device, and store it for later viewing. Streaming is a pain -- it makes the content less enjoyable because it's hard to fast forward, and impossible to port it to another device.

I think YouTube is a great repository for short videos, but people will get confused if they start hosting a lot of "real" content. Not too long ago, I wrote a feature article on how YouTube could become a great aggregator for all videos, including news reports, TV shows, and movies. I have since taken a new stance -- YouTube really only works for spontaneous viewing. Maybe they could change their model -- allowing us to download a movie -- but they'd have to change the name of the service. EveryTube.com?

John Brandon is a regular contributor to Computerworld, a print journalist, music reviewer, and book author.

What People Are Saying

YouTube is great for

YouTube is great for watching short user-gen videos, and it may well also be good for watching full-length movies – but there are currently plenty of movie watching sites out there, Hulu being only one. What these online video sites currently lack is a real sense of social activity. Lycos Cinema (cinema.lycos.com) is distinct in that it brings the social experience of watching movies with friends and fellow fans to the online experience – you can watch thousands of films (as well as TV content) in viewing rooms that allow you to chat in real-time with other audience members, or schedule viewing parties with friends.

Online TV

I agree that the video quality found on YouTube is lacking, especially in comparison with the alternatives (ABC.com, Hulu, etc.), but I don't think it matters how much you don't like the streaming model, because plenty of people do. Network sites have continually mentioned the popularity of their streaming video players.

Sure, it doesn't offer the same amount of flexibility, but for a couple minutes of commercials, I think watching a TV show online is a GREAT deal. It's quick, easy, and there's quite a bit to watch. Also, I imagine it won't be long until most portable devices have access to all of the same material.

If you need more flexibility, you can pay for it.

I don't see the problem

What's wrong with YouTube offering the service? If the quality is not comparable to other services, YouTube will have to improve it or people won't use it. That's how the free market works. The more sources consumers have, the better. Competition "ideally" makes the quality of service go up and the price go down.

Regarding YouTube specifically, I hope they do find a way to monetize their service. Can you imagine how much the server and bandwidth costs are to stream videos all around the world 24 hours a day? It would be a shame if the service was shut down because it proved to be too unprofitable.

No to Youtube streaming movies

Hasn't anyone noticed that everything Google puts out always seems so half-assed. With all the "genius" rooling around there you'd think they could put something together that did not function and look like a weekend dev project.