|
YouTube sucks.
By all accounts, it should have failed. The only reason it hasn't is because of traction, because it was the first video hosting site to succeed, and now it is backed by Google's never-ending bank account. However, for all that money, and all the engineers that Google has, YouTube is being trounced in usability by other video hosting sites. A very good example is Vimeo. The reason that Vimeo works so well is two-fold.
First, the usability of the site is worlds beyond Google. Uploading videos is absolutely painless. With Vimeo, you choose the file you want to upload, and begin uploading it. As it is uploading, you get a progress bar that shows exactly how much has uploaded. While this is happening, you can spend time filling in details like the name of the video, a description, searchable keywords, etc. Once the video is done uploading, you're taken to a new screen that informs you about the production process. You get a countdown timer that shows how long the process has left, as well as a percentage list item, that shows how far along in the process the video is. Compare this with YouTube. YouTube's upload process is abysmal. First, it works so poorly that they had to create a separate application just for uploading longer/larger/multiple videos, because so many uploads kept outright failing. If you do use the standard uploader, you get NO indication of what is happening; it doesn't even tell you that it is still uploading, the only indicator is if your web browser says that the page is still loading. No progress bar, nothing. Ok, so if you are patient enough to not close the browser out of despair (I generally start uploading before I go to bed so I don't have to come back and stare at the screen with absolutely no feedback), you (might) reach the processing stage (assuming your upload didn't fail). Once here, again, no feedback. Your video simply says "Processing" and you just sit and (manually) refresh the page, waiting for that to change. Beyond pathetic.
Second, HD, or high-definition. Vimeo is built around HD. If you upload an HD video, it is scaled to 720p resolution, and the Flash player embedded on the page gives you a nice, big video. This was available immediately after uploading and processing was completed. As an added bonus, Vimeo will (if you want) place a link to the source video file that users can download and playback on their local computer. Lets compare that to YouTube. With YouTube, you get a tiny little cramped 320 x 240 window. Prior to this year, all videos were scaled down to 320 x 240, no matter what the source. Google finally added an HD option, but it is hit-or-miss. They offer no explanation as to how your video receives the magical "Watch in high quality" link hidden underneath the video. Sometimes it will take hours, or days, before the link finally shows up. And downloading for local playback? Good luck. You'll have to get one of those tools that strips Flash videos out of embedded pages, and even then, it won't be in a very convenient format.
Basically, YouTube sucks. Google needs to sack up and fix their upload process, because it is a crime against nature to have to use it. Suggestions for how to fix it? Copy Vimeo to the letter. They have almost a perfect upload process. Also, it is almost the year 2009. Why are we being forced to watch the quality of videos that were on my first Microsoft Encarta CD in 1994? I mean, they already even have the HD version of the video sitting on their server; why cram it into a postage-stamp size viewing area? Does that even make sense? Just take a look at these two pictures. The first is how YouTube currently looks, the second is a mockup of how it could look with a larger Flash player. Which one is more appealing to you?
So that's basically it. I'm not sure why Google isn't taking YouTube seriously, but they aren't. Could this be a case of resting on your laurels? It's pretty uncharacteristic of Google, but at least on the surface, it sure seems that way... |
