The GooTube Debate

I read a lot of tech news and I listen to a lot of tech podcasts. And I am sick of hearing about how much Google's own Google Video product pales in comparison to YouTube. Yes, Google bought YouTube - that's old news. Also old news is the fact that Google Video has decided - at least for now - to run Google Video and YouTube independent of each other. Many journalists, bloggers, and podcasters that I have respect for have questioned this decision based on the perceived superiority of the YouTube model of video sharing. I think they are missing one major point: whether or not it was their intent, Google's video service caters to a completely different audience than YouTube does.

I agree that as far as video sharing goes, YouTube is vastly superior to Google Video. However, this assumes that Google Video and YouTube have users who are looking for the same level of functionality which YouTube happens to implement in a better way. I submit that while YouTube does sharing well, Google Video is more of a video hosting site. Sure, it includes some basic sharing features such as tags, comments, and the ability to post videos via blog, HTML, or MySpace. However, just by looking at the current layout of a standard Google Video page, one can see that the video takes center stage rather than the sharing features which are hidden in menus along the right hand side. This layout, which the journalists, bloggers, and podcasters referenced above might consider to be anti-social, puts the focus on the video. The social functions are merely secondary to the to the primary function of Google Video: storing videos.

When I shoot a video with my digital camera and want to put it on the internet, I go first to Google Video. There are a number of reasons for this. First, Google places limited restrictions on the size and length of videos that can be uploaded while YouTube restricts videos to 10 minutes and 100 megabytes. Also, as far as I can tell, YouTube only provides a web-based upload service. Google Video, on the other hand, specifically offers a downloadable uploader for files larger than 100 megabytes that is available for Windows, Mac OSX, and Linux. Besides these limitations, I find the upload procedure on Google Video to be simpler and more user friendly. I also find the video-centered interface of Google Video to be easier to navigate and much cleaner than YouTube's cluttered pages.

YouTube will probably bring in a lot of revenue for Google and I am happy about that. But to say that YouTube is better than Google Video and let that be the end of the story is a disservice to a great product. It all boils down to this: if you want to share your videos and are looking for a social atmosphere, go ahead and upload them to YouTube. If you are looking for a place to store your digital videos no matter what the length or size is and an easy way to embed them in your blog or webpage, please upload them to Google Video.

Considering my general anti-social tilt, I will stick to Google Video.