Reply With QuoteIt uses H.263, not H.264. Big difference there.Originally Posted by Backov
No, not going to expound on them since I don't know.
The problem is I can't really find an article on it as it is. It's an AJAX site, so what are they doing - streaming chunks of H.264 in XML/JSON and then decoding it with javascript?
EDIT: Shit, my bad, it's Flash - was it always flash? Was I hallucinating it being an AJAX site?
Anyone know or have a good article?
As an aside, I was told that the backend, servers and client code for Youtube are all total crap - the sale was all about eyeballs.
It uses H.263, not H.264. Big difference there.
It was always flash. That why it actually works.
Bingo. That was the main ingredient of the secret sauce.
It does? I don't know what Google Videos uses, but there are far less problems with it.
Why would the sale ever have been about the hardware running it?
Yea, Google really just needed the idea and the name. Just the name really. And the URL I guess. Name and URL. Millions of dollars for seven letters of the alphabet.
They had the idea already - minus the community stuff, they really suck at that.
But it is simple what they needed.
They just agreed with myspace to a 900 million dollar ad deal. Google Adsense (the text ads) make up the bulk of their money these days. They need sites to show these ads. Sites need content to exist.
So when you look at it that way, the purchase is pretty simple. The myspace deal's 900 million is myspace's cut of the ad profits - roughly half over 3 years. So if youtube's public traffic stats are correct, it would take 6 or so years to make that much with a similar ad deal with them, or they could drop the ad share and make it back in 3 years, or the youtube purchase price back in 5-6 years.
Add to that the amount of sites using youtube's hosted videos. All of these sites become possible partners for adsense (they do try and recruit these sites). So instead of just having content on one site they are trying to monetize, they can have ads on 100 sites for each piece of content and monetize at least some number of those sites.
They also have video ads in beta.
The youtube deal was all about ads and content to show ads around.
Chet
It's the first step of shutting out the competition maybe? Who knows. Good buy either way if you ask me..
Google Video uses Flash as well.
Yeah, and I've never had a problem with either. Wumpus' blog entry about YouTube had the right of it: Flash was the right way to go not because it gives you good quality video (it doesn't), but because it cuts right through the gordian knot of codec headaches and just works.
When Google Video first debuted, didn't you have to download and install some Google-made EXE in order to view videos? I can't remember if that EXE later turned into the Google Video Player, or if had always just been an external player.
They didn't have an external player, but an external uploader. They also reviewed each upload by hand, so it could take 2-3 days to see your video. Not the most user friendly way to add videos.
Chet
Ahem. Flash currently uses the On2 VP6 codec for video, which is perfectly capable of delivering DVD-quality video at bitrates comparable to the various MPEG-4 implementations. At web-appropriate bitrates you're not going to get "good" video out of any codec.
Actually, Google did have (and still does have) an external player. It's not necessary to install it to watch the videos from the website, but it does offer some added functionality.
http://video.google.com/playerdownload
Maybe, but the video quality of embedded Quicktime and WMV stuff that companies use for movie trailers and the like is considerably better than anything I've seen on YouTube. The point is that ease of use trumps video quality in a big way.
(very slowly this time)
Because... they're... higher... bandwidth... and... higher... resolution.
Yes, I understand that, but it's beside the point. They still look better than anything I've seen on YouTube. Whether or not Flash video can deliver high quality, high resolution video is irrelevant, because YouTube's implementation of it doesn't. My point (or wumpus', rather) is that this hasn't hurt YouTube's success.
That's what Mark Cuban doesn't get. Most people aren't videophiles. They don't find youtube quality of videos offensive, instead they put ease of use well above the quality level of the videos.
Only if by 'implementation' you mean that youtube has their bandwidth per connection set at x, whereas others have it set at some number higher than x. Youtube could have a lot prettier videos quite easily.
Exactly. Youtube's success is at least half due to Macromedia/Adobe finally being the people to get video on the web right.
As others have said, Flash is perfectly capable of showing very high quality video. At that point though, you lose the big benefit (the streaming that actually works well).Maybe, but the video quality of embedded Quicktime and WMV stuff that companies use for movie trailers and the like is considerably better than anything I've seen on YouTube. The point is that ease of use trumps video quality in a big way.
Youtube doesn't allow people to post videos of very high quality for very simple reasons-- their bandwidth costs are already astronomical and they want a consistent instant-view experience for their users.
Wow. The horrors they must have witnessed screening those clips...
Posting Permissions