Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Video Becomes Search-Only, YouTube Holds Content

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the one-falls-while-the-other-rises dept.

Google 119

Bangor writes "Google is planning to turn Google Video into a search index of all the world's available video online. The change will see YouTube becoming Google's only platform for user-generated video and premium content sales, and Google said that YouTube content would be immediately added to the Google Video search index. The company plans to expand that to eventually include all video online. From the article: 'The company said that they 'envision most user-generated and premium video content being hosted on YouTube,' which clearly suggests that the Google Video storefront will eventually give way to YouTube.'"

cancel ×

119 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Zeus fucks twofo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17755452)

Twofo [twofo.co.uk] Is Dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick [warwick.ac.uk] filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces [tubgirl.com] .

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Re:Zeus fucks twofo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17756936)

Should have used LUSerNet [lusernet.tk]

too late! (0, Offtopic)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755454)

I don't know what to invent to piss mods of, please help.... ah yes: PENIS!

Official Announcement (5, Informative)

warmgun (669556) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755484)

Here's a link [blogspot.com] to the official announcement from Google's blog.

Too bad (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17755520)

Google's interface was better. The videos could easily take up nearly full screen, the quality seemed a little bit higher, and it was just overall easier to deal with compared to YouTube.

Re:Too bad (5, Interesting)

painQuin (626852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755646)

But maybe, just maybe, Google will take that into consideration, and use the Google Video backend to power the YouTube website? YouTube is basically a name and color scheme, as far as most people are concerned.

Re:Too bad (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755940)

What would be interesting if they gave you an option...say if you found the video through google's search it played with their player, but if you searched directly on youtube you used theirs...that was no one has to get used to something new if they don't want to...

Re:Too bad (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17761376)

Switching from one to the other isn't like switching operating systems. I don't think they really have to have a 'backwards compatibility suite'

NOT Too bad! (2, Interesting)

Prysorra (1040518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755996)

YouTube *purposely* compresses video into a low quality FLV/flash video format before you ever see it. Don't lose all hope - YouTube might get better.

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the videos from YouTube made available from the Google Search are higher quality - in fact, maybe even the original . After all, SOMETHING needs to attract visitors to the Google page!

Re:Too bad (4, Interesting)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756004)

The quality on YouTube varies wildly because of the sheer number of videos on there. Some are pretty good and some are really bad. Google Video on the other hand has far less content (and far less interesting content, AFAIC) and maybe on average the people who upload to it tend to have higher-quality original material.

I rarely care about the quality on YouTube. After all, if I'm looking at an 80s commercial I haven't seen in 20+ years I don't expect HD quality. The obscure cool stuff is why I find YouTube compelling, not the "lonelygirl15"-like crap. YouTube is to video what Napster was to music in the early 00s. It's the most amazing collection of obscure crap you thought you had forgotten or really never thought you'd find. I really like it.

No, Google Video allowed 4X higher resolution (5, Informative)

ebonkyre (520924) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756732)

GV allowed 640x480 with no size/length restrictions and no fee.
YT maxes out at 320x240, with a 100MB/10min limit on free accounts.

Re:No, Google Video allowed 4X higher resolution (1)

nernie (1050594) | more than 7 years ago | (#17758980)

You can get the video downloader add-on to firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2390/ [mozilla.org] to download the videos, then watch them on something like VLC. It won't make the quality better, but I find that the playback is smoother and you can make it true full screen (no browser window).

Re:No, Google Video allowed 4X higher resolution (1)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 7 years ago | (#17759684)

Last I checked, Video Downloader was basically spyware for Firefox which logs all videos you want to download by taking you to their website with advertisements to buy other video download products, and the download is proxied through their website, not just ripped directly from the flash file on Google/Youtube's website.

Re:No, Google Video allowed 4X higher resolution (1)

nernie (1050594) | more than 7 years ago | (#17759948)

I'm not sure about the rest, but the little button just pops up a little window with a link that you can right click and save as. No ads are on that page.

Re:No, Google Video allowed 4X higher resolution (4, Insightful)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17759764)

Plus, Google lets you download the original file (DivX/MPEG/whatever). I really hope they don't get rid of this. Google Video was a better video uploading site, it's just that YouTube is more popular and has more content.

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17757362)

He's talking about video quality, not quality of content. Like, resolution and compression.

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17759578)

dont EVER say that again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17762298)

Do NOT compare YouTube to Napster ever again!

YouTube do NOT allow you to download the posted movies in their original (or even shitty remade) quality. They do NOT spread videos or make it easy to share them.

Yes, every noob can upload their video for it to be WATCHED. But they stay on the site. This gives no glory to YouTube, they are just like every other upload service online, hoping to get more visitors than the others.

I want videos to SPREAD, preferrably in their original state. Although it was not obvious to many people Google Video at least allowed you to download a decent .AVI file of every posted video.

And Google Video allowed anonymous comments up until recently. Big plus.

The day YouTube has a big visible DOWNLOAD button next to the video and allow ANONYMOUS comments, that will be the day I recognize their glory.

But right now YouTube is just any random site that happend to get the most visitors at the moment. They aint special.

Re:Too bad (3, Interesting)

tknd (979052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756172)

I actually prefer youtube's interface to google's. With google's they took the 'search' engine approach to video, but how are you going to 'search' for video with text? I often find that you can't and that's why youtube's browsing capabilities won out over google.

Re:Too bad (1)

techitout (998972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756384)

Yeah, I agree about the user interface -- YouTube's social functionality is much more developed, and enticing. Google is much more minimalist (as usual). Will they ever bring a design team in?

Re:Too bad (1)

jaymz2k4 (790806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756574)

agreed, i hope they do what some posters are suggesting and allow the user the choice to autoplay it within the current googlevid style. personally, i normally search on googlevid first for more 'lecture style' topics than youtube and normally get good results, so it would be a total shame to see it all moved to youtube, imho. then again since they are one & the same company, the interface would (you'd think), take the best of both.

Re:Too bad (5, Insightful)

alphamugwump (918799) | more than 7 years ago | (#17757504)

What I liked about google video was the fact that the stream was seekable. You could drag the little slider past the end of the buffer, the video would start buffering from that point, and it still play. That doesn't work with youtube.

Re:Too bad (1)

Mr. Picklesworth (931427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17758478)

Then there's the way that videos on Google Video could be downloaded.
Quite unfortunate to lose that, because I am always downloading videos from there!

Hopefully they will see about that...

Re:Too bad (1)

bismark.a (882874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17758770)

Wow, if they take away downloads from Google Videos then I will have to really find a flash stream recorder. Any one recommend a good one for Firefox?

Makes sense (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755526)

I mean it makes sense considering a lot of videos appear on both, and they own both, so why not cut costs by just linking to the one on youtube. That way they can free up more storage as they keep adding to gmail.

Re:Makes sense (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755652)

Eh. It's not about the space, it's about good old fashioned "normalization"...Don't duplicate effort. They'd have to have staff to maintain Google video, and staff to maintain YouTube, staff to program new features for Google video, and staff to program new features for YouTube.

The only problem I see is that, historically, YouTube has been much quicker to respond to DMCA-style takedown notices than Google Video, and I'd hate to see that policy continue at YouTube and lose Google video at the same time.

Re:Makes sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17755762)

On the technical side, I hope that Google Video's ability to advance to any point in a video will be added to YouTube.

Re:Makes sense (1)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755854)

Eh. It's not about the space, it's about good old fashioned "normalization"...Don't duplicate effort.
So Google is kind of like early Microsoft buying out other's technologies?

Re:Makes sense (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755870)

Yeah I know what you mean, the gmail thing was sort of a joke I know they have almost infinite space anyways, its about cutting costs, because it's more expensive to do the same thing in two different places for no real reason, pretty much just like you said.

I was wondering... (2, Insightful)

ubergenius (918325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755530)

I was wondering how the acquisition of YouTube would affect their Google Video service, which was always far behind its competition. However, this also means that some YouTube content will now be sold, which detracts from one of the allures it has always had, which was that all content was free and accessible.

I wonder if Google has plans to Google-fy the YouTube look (they'll likely hold onto the brand name, but the look and feel are very changeable)?

Re:I was wondering... (2, Informative)

uchihalush (898615) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755738)

Why would content now be sold? That wouldn't work at all. Google Video sells TV Shows. Full Version and uncut. Similar to the iTunes Video Store. This accquisition should in no way affect the price model of youtube. If it does happen, google will have made a huge mistake, one I doubt they will make. I don't see how you jumped from combining of services to selling select videos. Google Video does in fact have videos that you can just watch after all. As far as I can tell only those tv shows/ movies will continue to be sold, while any of ther other crap on youtube/ google video will remain free.

Re:I was wondering... (2, Interesting)

ubergenius (918325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755954)

You missed my point entirely. Yes, the vast majority of YouTube content would still be free, as is Google Video, but as of now everything, without exception, is free on YouTube, whereas commercial content (TV shows, as you say) are for pay on Google Video. Therefore, my curiosity lies in whether or not those shows will be moving to YouTube (if GV becomes search-only), and if so, how will the paying process be integrated into the previously-completely-free YouTube.

Free vs paid (1)

sjbe (173966) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755830)

However, this also means that some YouTube content will now be sold, which detracts from one of the allures it has always had, which was that all content was free and accessible.


Why would "some YouTube content" being sold make it less alluring? I'm genuinely curious. What (theoretically) prevents you from using it for all the things you use it for now? There's no inherent reason the paid content couldn't just be an addition to the free stuff without detracting from it. Sure they might screw it up but it's all hypothetical at this point anyway. YouTube can't exist indefinitely without some way to pay the bills. Google's so far got a decent track record for integrating paid & non-paid content in non-irritating ways.

Re:Free vs paid (2, Interesting)

ubergenius (918325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756006)

You are correct, as long as the integration is well done, there will be no problem. And Google DOES have a good track record of integrating free and for-pay content in the same service. It just will be interesting to see how the transition from "100% free content created entirely by end-users" becomes "a mix of commercial generated for-pay videos combined with free user-generated videos".

Re:I was wondering... (0, Redundant)

instantkamera (919463) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755852)

I wonder if Google has plans to Google-fy the YouTube look (they'll likely hold onto the brand name, but the look and feel are very changeable)?



GooTube

Hopefully they will actually make a good search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17755620)

The YouTube search is very bad. It's understandable, since with videos you don't exactly have much to go on, but I have seen that keyword spamming is rampant. Likewise with Google Video, but maybe they will come up with something that works.

Head hurt (3, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755648)

Can someone please translate this all into non-marketdroid-speak?

3PO?! Get over here! Translate this. Then hit me in the head with a lead pipe so I can understand it.

Re:Head hurt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17755734)

- owning 2 video pages not good because expensive
- better only have 1 because saving money good
- youtube is soon google's only video site
- google only indexing videos because they good at that

Re:Head hurt - translated (0)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755846)

Can someone please translate this all into non-marketdroid-speak?

It means, "All your videos are belong to Google".

Re:Head hurt (3, Funny)

bwalling (195998) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756242)

Can someone please translate this all into non-marketdroid-speak?

You will now be able to find porn clips on Google Video as easily as you can find porn images on Google Images.

Re:Head hurt (1)

whitehatlurker (867714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17759520)

Google has re-invented video search [altavista.com] .

Predictions (4, Funny)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755666)

1. This will save everyone from having to upload their boobie and accident videos twice - go look at the top 100 some time, that's all it is.

2. People that create the content (videos) still won't get paid, much like Google News, etc.

3. Google will replace their search in a year to one big button "I'm feeling lucky"... which will show a boobie video.

Re:Predictions (1)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 7 years ago | (#17757312)

Oh...you mean like these? [youtube.com]

all video's ?? (0, Troll)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755668)

Dose this include porn. I can see it now "Google Adult" or "Google XXX"

Re:all video's ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17755730)

Yea, I'm sure that XTube [xtube.com] will be real happy about this.

Re:all video's ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17755890)

xtube? Please, ahref=http://youporn.com/rel=url2html-7460 [slashdot.org] http://y ouporn.com/> is much more like an adults only youtube. No registration needed to view anything and tons of amateur stuff

open source and video (3, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755710)

I'm wondering if OSS is going to be left behind completely when it comes to video. I'm interested in doing some free educational videos, for instance, but I don't want to mess around with proprietary software, because OSS is what floats my boat. If I'm understanding the current technological system correctly, you-tube became popular because they packaged video in a convenient way, as flash applications. However, flash uses proprietary codecs for both audio (MP3) and video. It is possible to develop for flash using a 100% pure OSS setup, but AFAICT there are some pretty severe limitations, including lack of source-code compatibility for GUI widget libraries, and lack of OSS support for proprietary codecs. It doesn't seem like ogg theora is really ready for prime time yet, and in any case there's no sign that Adobe will ever support free codecs for audio and video. Yes, you can use ffmpeg, but the fact that it's illegal in most jurisdictions for many uses is surely going to put a damper on it in the OSS community.

One interesting recent development with audio is that it's become practical to get audio out to users using a completely OSS chain of software. In this [wikipedia.org] WP article, for instance, there are links to recorded snippets (claimed as free use) which take you to a pure-java ogg player that runs as an applet in your browser. The preformance is actually surprisingly decent, possibly because of JIT. Since the last remaining bits of Sun's Java implementation will go GPL in March, we'll really have a pretty good framework for distributing audio via 100% OSS. OTOH, I don't see any signs that anyone is going to take theora seriously any time in the near future.

Re:open source and video (1)

woadlined (1054792) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755832)

What has not been achieved by FOSS in the world of video will be in due course. Video presents no special barriers.

Re:open source and video (2, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756014)

What has not been achieved by FOSS in the world of video will be in due course.
It is already possible for us Linux geeks, after putting up with large amounts of sweat and frustration, to exchange video freely with each other. The problem is that it's not practical for 99% of all users. Given that 99% of all users now expect their experience to be as effortless as you-tube, I don't see how there's ever going to be any way to communicate video to them in a way that they consider practical. With you-tube, they probably don't even have to have downloaded a plugin, because their copy of IE probably already had the flash player preinstalled for them when they bought the computer.

Video presents no special barriers.
I think there's a window of opportunity that may have been missed with video. With audio, vorbis was already available and stable around the time that a large number of people started having broadband access. With video, it looks like a de facto standard has emerged, and it's proprietary and patented, and it may be too late for theora to compete.

Re:open source and video (1)

woadlined (1054792) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756386)

True enough...although there was a time where IE was viewed by practical folks as a de facto standard.

You're confusing things (5, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756022)

You're mixing up several issues here.

Firstly, posting a video on YouTube does not require any flash development at all. So the availability of FOSS flash development tools for POSTING is a non-starter.

Secondly, YouTube supports a plethora of codecs, some of which are already FOSS. For example, I know they support XVid for a fact. Now, I know this is an MPEG4 based codec and is therefore patent-encumbered in some parts of the world, but IMO this has nothing to do with if it is FOSS or not. YouTube may already support FOSS codecs like Theora, Dirac and Tarkin, I don't know I have never tried. But frankly, it would not surprise me if they did, especially since they already support obscure formats like "Sega Video".

The only FOSS-related issue, as far as YouTube goes, is the fact that you (supposedly) need a binary flash PLAYER to VIEW the content. I say "supposedly" because in actual fact, anyone can download the .flv file and use FOSS tools to transcode it to any format you want, including simply changing the container losslessly. Since these tools are already available, it would not be out of reach to envision a simple FOSS Firefox plugin that did this on the fly for YouTube and other similar sites.

Re:You're confusing things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17757178)

Firstly, posting a video on YouTube does not require any flash development at all.

I believe the parent was referring to delivering video in the manner of YouTube, not on YouTube.

Re:You're confusing things (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17758788)

Your ideas are interesting, but it sounds like you're proposing techniques that are free-as-in-beer, but not at all free-as-in-speech. If my only way of distributing video is to go through You-Tube's proprietary server-side software, then clearly that's not an OSS approach.

Firstly, posting a video on YouTube does not require any flash development at all. So the availability of FOSS flash development tools for POSTING is a non-starter.
Note that my original post was not "how do I post videos on You Tube using OSS?" I was just using You Tube as an example of the kind of convenience that users expect at this point. The point of my original post is we do not have a usable soup-to-nuts OSS toolchain for video (one that will let us transmit videos to ordinary users), and we probably never will have one until the codec patents expire decades from now.

I say "supposedly" because in actual fact, anyone can download the .flv file and use FOSS tools to transcode it to any format you want, including simply changing the container losslessly.
Well, no, not legally, at least not in my jurisdiction (U.S.). The video codecs they're using are patented, so, e.g., using ffmpeg to convert it to theora is illegal for me. Changing the container format will not change the proprietary codec inside the flash file into a nonproprietary one. This is something I discussed in my original post. Licensing and legal problems like this may not stop a small number of OSS enthusiasts who don't think they're likely to get sued, but they'll put a huge damper on how much the OSS community will be willing to build a useful structure around them. Look at hassles we've been having for all these years with Java; have you ever tried installing a java browser plugin on FreeBSD? It was a ridiculous amount of hassle to get it to work, because even though it was legal, there were lots of licensing hassles. The result was that Java, which would have been a natural resource for building OSS alternatives to MS, was basically a crippled, disrespected platform in the OSS world. The situation with video codecs is even worse. It's not just that there are licensing problems, it's that it's totally illegal to encode or decode them without paying patent royalties.

Re:You're confusing things (1)

spyder913 (448266) | more than 7 years ago | (#17758876)

Your ideas are interesting, but it sounds like you're proposing techniques that are free-as-in-beer, but not at all free-as-in-speech. If my only way of distributing video is to go through You-Tube's proprietary server-side software, then clearly that's not an OSS approach.
There isn't anything stopping you from hosting them yourself, is there? YouTube is not the only site on the web.

Re:You're confusing things (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17761036)

There isn't anything stopping you from hosting them yourself, is there? YouTube is not the only site on the web.
What format do I host them in? If I host them in ogg theora, I won't be able to reach 99% of the population.

Re:You're confusing things (1)

Comsn (686413) | more than 7 years ago | (#17759226)

mike melanson, the vlc developer and now linux flash plugin developer, has created a wiki page with what formats youtube supports...

http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=YouTube [multimedia.cx]

also you can create flash video using ffmpeg and mencoder
and play it in vlc and mplayer (both flash1 and flash9/vp6 are supported).

gnash will soon be able to play such videos embedded in youtube....

Re:You're confusing things (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 7 years ago | (#17759370)

I think mplayer and vlc will play the pesky .flv files FFmpeg illegal? wtf?

oh noes! (0)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755774)

I never used either on any sort of regular basis... something about flash being a bitch for 64-bit Linux users...

I guess it takes "will power" not to be a sheep to fads. That and 99% of the videos on the sites are either of horrible quality [bitrate/audio/etc], horribly produced [shoddy script/camera/plot/point] or both. That and I grew up with "Americas Funniest Videos" so I have all the useful home videos memories I can stand. ... am I just an old fart? Can't be!!! I'm only 24.83 years old!!!

Tom

Re:oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17755958)

I think you misunderstand the power of this medium. It's not all bullshit. Just like the rest of the internet, there's a lot of junk but also good stuff if you know where to look.

Re:oh noes! (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756024)

I agree there are funny/informative/etc videos. They're just the vast minority and wading through the shite is not "fun". Rather play the piano, bitch about things on /. or go for a drive instead of sit at the puter waiting for videos to download ...

Tom

Re:oh noes! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17758848)

If you use the videodownloader [mozilla.org] extension to firefox you can download the flash videos. They can be played with VLC. You can use downThemAll! to do the downloads, so they can be managed better than with firefox's crap-ass download window.

Re:oh noes! (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17758804)

I'm only 24.83 years old!!!



Are you? I'd always read you as being 40ish from your posts.

A sort of grumpy, gruff, bearded, cynical UNIX admin, who doesn't like this young upstart Linux.
 
Tell me I'm right!

Not Really (2, Informative)

rustybrick (698983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755778)

It is not search only, you will still be able to upload videos to Google Video. The article just says that Google Video will have different features than YouTube... i.e. YouTube will focus more around the community aspects of video.

Finally Google Decides To Focus (1)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755780)

After much being made of Google slipping from doing a few things very well to doing many things up to par, they seem to be focusing again on their existing network. No surprise that it their major investment that is receiving much of the focus.

I for one, am happy to see Google working to improve existing modules instead of rolling out a new beta module from Google Labs every few months.

Eww flash video only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17755808)

So does this mean that after years of progress with MPEG4 and H.264, I have no alternative to yucky .flv files (H.263 derivitives) anymore? Why can't youtube give me the option to download a better-quality .mp4 version?

RIP better interface (4, Insightful)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755810)

Too bad. Google Video's interface is far better than YouTube's. The dealbreaker that keeps me loyal to Google Video (not that there's anything worth watching on either) is the ability to skip forward in the video to a part that hasn't yet been cached. I sometimes like to skip through a video to see whether it's worth my while to watch and it makes me nuts having to wait for the whole thing to download first.

Re:RIP better interface (1)

sabi (721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755872)

Wow, two services in one week! The atrocious "beta" Google Groups just became the only interface, despite everyone I know inside and outside of Google hating it...

Re:RIP better interface (1)

rice_web (604109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756302)

This assumes that the Google and YouTube teams aren't set to make interface improvements to YouTube.com. That is simply not the case.

Re:RIP better interface (1)

archen (447353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756356)

And google lets you download the video as avi in Linux (usually). YouTube doesn't seem to do this last I checked. Does that mean they just locked me out of their video content entirely?

Re:RIP better interface (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17758798)

Sounds to me like you ned VideoDownloader [mozilla.org] which will let you use firefox to download the avi or flv (depending on what formats are permitted.) VLC plays FLVs.

Re:RIP better interface (1)

Nemetroid (883968) | more than 7 years ago | (#17757512)

Well, atleast Youtube loaded videos correctly at all. Every time i had to use Google Video it would stop somewhere midway through and you'd have to skip a bit to go on.

Bad move... (2, Insightful)

cei (107343) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755816)

So much for being able to freely host video without that annoying You Tube logo/bug in the corner of your original content.

Re:Bad move... (1)

itsdave (105030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17757530)

I think the watermark is only visible when you embed the video on your own web page. if you watch the video on youtubes site, the watermark is not there.

Aw. I really like Google vid's clean interface. (3, Interesting)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755874)

I really liked Google vids clean layout, and served perfectly for putting up my (private/nonsearchable) testing videos for a game I am working on.

A shame I have to resort to the cluttered YouTube interface, I hope they at least keep the 'private' option available.

Don't get me wrong: I love YouTube when I want to randomly browse videos one after the other, getting appropriate links from the suggested videos: I just don't think it serves me well in publishing such a video (without resorting to implementing it in my site) with a clean interface.

RTFA! Google Video Will Still Host Content! (5, Informative)

pctainto (325762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17755962)

Google Video is not going away! All they're doing is adding YouTube results to the search results when you search Google Video. Their plan is to at some point incorporate other video websites so that Google Video is not just a place to view videos, but also the one place to search for videos.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/look-ahead- at-google-video-and-youtube.html [blogspot.com]

Re:RTFA! Google Video Will Still Host Content! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17762436)

Wtf who wrote this news article?

Are you telling me I wasted time writing angry letters about how Google Video would suck now when in reality nothing important has changed at all???

Jesus Christ on a stick... I got really worried there for a minute.

SLASHDOT!!!

Change the damn article before more people read your lies.

this sucks because google had no limitations (-1, Redundant)

MePhuq (941622) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756032)

on how much you could upload, i hate these companies because IN ORDER FOR VIDEO TO BE USEFUL FOR RESEARCH MORE THAN JUST DIGGS FLASH SWARM and the millenia old established TEXT LISTS, need to be used to peruse content, I'VE SAID IT AT LEAST 20 TIMES IN DIFFERENT PLACES FOR THE LIST 11 FUCKING YEARS, WE NEED A MULTI MEDIA COLLAGE YOU CAN CONTROL THAT IS OBVIOUSLY VIDEO BASED, YOU WANNA KNOW WHAT I MEAN GOTO YOUTUBE TYPE IN WOMP2007 OR RECONTEXUALIZED CONTENT PROMOTION AND WATCH ME EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT FOR 20 MINUTES, TOO BUSY TO DO THAT, WINDOW SHOPPING FOR MEDIA THREE BUTTON CONTROL OR GUI VIDEO AUDIO DATE "V" "A" "D" RAPID MEDIA MARKS ARE CREATED, REVENUE OPPORUNITIES ABOUND, WATCH THE CLIP

ALL of Available Video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17756038)

"Google is planning to turn Google Video into a search index [CC] of all the world's available video online."

ALL of the world's available video? No, I don't think so. I'm sure I will still have to go to http://liveleak.com/ [liveleak.com] to see those deleted from YouTube

Quality Comparison (3, Interesting)

Hiroto. S (631919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756164)

I like some of the feature of Youtube but I couldn't get the video quality I wanted from my iMovie created videos. Here is the report of my experiment I posted to Apple discussion forum (which sadly, nobody responded :-( )

Export option for highest quality posting to Google video and YouTube [apple.com]

They better do the switching after Youtube's quality is equivalent to GV. Also download feature is important for me too.

Google Video is much better! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17756224)

I prefer youtube to be a part of Google Video not the opposite.

1 - With Google Video I can download the videos in avi format and with a higher resolution.
2 - Google Video license conditions are much better than youtube.
3 - Google Video's interface is better

We'll miss you, google video (3, Insightful)

heroine (1220) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756250)

The nice thing about google video was that it worked and it was simple. You could resize the video arbitrarily. Unfortunately simplicity and functionality doesn't make money.

Re:We'll miss you, google video (1)

KoldKompress (1034414) | more than 7 years ago | (#17761962)

The nice thing about google video was that it worked and it was simple. You could resize the video arbitrarily. Unfortunately simplicity and functionality doesn't make money.

Because Google Search doesn't make any profit...?

Hope they include downloading (2, Insightful)

Paralizer (792155) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756358)

I liked the Google video feature of downloading videos. Hopefully they will incorporate this in their integration of the two.

For some reason on Linux, with 32bit Firefox and flash, the video/audio desyncs when watching videos on YouTube. So I normally try to find the video in question on Google so I can download and watch it with mplayer. Why YouTube didn't offer a download option, I'll probably never know, but Google seems to know exactly what users want and gives it to them; I can only hope they will continue with that for this project.

On another note, it made more sense for the videos to take up most of the screen. Rather than YouTube's backwards approach of a video taking up 15% of the page, ads taking up 10%, and flamebait/troll comments from 12 year old kids. I only want to see the video (and maybe some ads so they can generate some money for the bandwidth its costing them), that's all we need.

Agreed. Ease of Download FTW (1)

interactive_civilian (205158) | more than 7 years ago | (#17757426)

The ability to easily download from Google Video is my favorite aspect. I really hope they keep that functionality somehow. It is especially nice that (for most videos), you can easily download for iPod. I am a big fan of Red vs Blue [roosterteeth.com] , and since I only have internet access at work at the moment, I usually hit up Google Video for new episodes so that I don't have to download and then convert them to watch at home on my iPod.

There are a lot of other videos that I do this with as well. If I find an interesting video linked here, at Fark, etc. that I don't have the time to watch, again I just download it for my iPod and watch it later. This is for me the best part of Google Video.

Re:Hope they include downloading (1)

xehonk (930376) | more than 7 years ago | (#17758670)

For some reason on Linux, with 32bit Firefox and flash, the video/audio desyncs when watching videos on YouTube.
Try upgrading to the newest version of flash (9.0.31 or something). No more a/v desync for me :)

That is to bad (1)

G00F (241765) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756430)

And here I was going to start uploading video's I created to google . . .

I'm not surprised (1)

ErGalvao (843384) | more than 7 years ago | (#17756602)

Nothing more logical, if you think about how Google Video compete with You Tube and the power that the You Tube brand has. I don't see how Google would maintain both services running simultaneously as they are today.

Stereo or Mono (1)

lonechicken (1046406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17757048)

What about stereo vs. mono? And I don't mean the "stereo" (fake two channel mono) of YouTube videos to date.

Re:Stereo or Mono (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17757988)

agree

Re:Stereo or Mono (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17758856)

me too!

Google Video has "seek", YouTube doesn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17757166)

I like Google Video's feature of being able to set the video's current time to whatever you want, whereas YouTube allows this only after you've downloaded everything up until the requested position. Why can't YouTube support "seek"? Does seeking to a random place in the video require some extra protocol support on the server side? Or is it just some dumb artifact of the client player?

Google-fu (2, Informative)

goarilla (908067) | more than 7 years ago | (#17757946)

since google is the biggest web index in the world
wouldn't SEARCHTERM ext:(avi | wmv | asf | mov | ogg | ogm | mp4 ) already
give you the most video results on this big blue rock in the sky
while searching for things like that is kinda unusual for many users
google video could be a front-end for just that

anyway i like this initiative, because it do think it won't be the easy front-end i just subscribed
and i endorse it since youtube does a better job at providing web based video than video.google imo
their flash player just kicks video.google's player 'mivonks': i never seem to be able to seek in video.google and it doesn't seem to ... keep downloading data when the player is paused

the former is a necessary feature since recently my cpu cooler is seems to be dying so i have to pause regularly to lower the temps from time to time
and the fact that it keeps downloading enables people with slow or irregular downloads to enjoy a movie as well.
this could simply be the best of both worlds and that would be awesome

I like Google Video Interface but ... (2, Informative)

bismark.a (882874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17759186)

It misses out on some important features. 1. Favourites. Why on earth did they not add this to Google Video? Of course people can book mark favourites on their browser, but not everybody carries Google Firefox Extension to synchronize bookmarks everywhere. And this could have given clearer picture about popularity of video contents too. 2. Hide Stuff, instead of view fullscreen. People do like to keep their desktops uncluttered. A button of keyboard shortcut or anything suitable to hide away the narrow right margin, instead of popping up a full screen would have been much more desirable. 3. Comments and labels were added very late. 4. No features to allow user to view history (Not even a frickin link to the GOogle Search history page), or organize use of Google Video content and features were provided. You tube has for instance, playlists (manipulatable, Gooogle Video only has automatic search playlist). 5. Search in Google Video was terrible. Most of the time I get totally unrelated video. Whereas, more often than not, viewing one item on YouTube, would almost in 80% of the cases, get you handy links to related content. You could be hooked on the site for almost entire browsing session. 6. Communities were better provided for in You Tube. Google Video does not have any community feel in Google Video. Although the minimalistic interface worked fine for Google Search Site, it does not work for Video content sites. The main reason is, one would spend about few minutes searching for stuff, but substantially much more viewing (or reading) content which they have searched. And that is something which needs more usable features.

Re:I like Google Video Interface but ... (1)

bismark.a (882874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17759278)

Mucked up the format here

It misses out on some important features.

1. Favourites. Why on earth did they not add this to Google Video? Of course people can book mark favourites on their browser, but not everybody carries Google Firefox Extension to synchronize bookmarks everywhere. And this could have given clearer picture about popularity of video contents too.

2. Hide Stuff, instead of view fullscreen. People do like to keep their desktops uncluttered. A button of keyboard shortcut or anything suitable to hide away the narrow right margin, instead of popping up a full screen would have been much more desirable.

3. Comments and labels were added very late.

4. No features to allow user to view history (Not even a frickin link to the GOogle Search history page), or organize use of Google Video content and features were provided. You tube has for instance, playlists (manipulatable, Gooogle Video only has automatic search playlist).

5. Search in Google Video was terrible. Most of the time I get totally unrelated video. Whereas, more often than not, viewing one item on YouTube, would almost in 80% of the cases, get you handy links to related content. You could be hooked on the site for almost entire browsing session.

6. Communities were better provided for in You Tube. Google Video does not have any community feel in Google Video.

Although the minimalistic interface worked fine for Google Search Site, it does not work for Video content sites. The main reason is, one would spend about few minutes searching for stuff, but substantially much more viewing (or reading) content which they have searched. And that is something which needs more usable features.

Here's what you're seeing... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17759734)

Free market forces closing off a method of free publication made simple, easy enough that fools can and do use it. It's something they have not found a way to make a reliable buck from, as the site would lose it's popularity if it went to pay-per-use. They want to commercialize the site and prohibit people from freely posting whatever they wish free of charge. It's also their right, though, as it's their site. How long did you expect them to continue to add storage to archive all that video and keep it always ready to access and use?

i dont like it. (1)

Treates2 (1004837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17760272)

seems like every few days youtube goes down for "manteniance", i actually get a kick from the comments on youtube, but googles interface is easier to watch videos without distractions, and yeah youtube gets dmca takedowns all the time, i havent ever seen any for google video, and it seems like video.google holds more room for video and thats too damn bad!

THIS SUCKS BIG TIME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17762210)

Title sums it up pretty good. Google Video is/was way superior to YouTube.

Unless YouTube upgrades to use the Google Video system, like offering to download .AVI files in GOOD quality of the video (if you didn't know how to do it you missed out on something).

Man this is sad. We lose a great piece of Internet.

I HATE the shitty YouTube quality. =( It was bad enough when Google turned off anonymous comments on Google Video but removing it I never would have dreamt of.

My hate for Google grows...

sh5It!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17762342)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>