YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

#31

Post by techtalsky » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 2:38 AM UTC

Funny... I got the message that I could upload longer videos, but the bullet points next to the upload button still say "Shorter than 15 minutes."

Re: YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

#32

Post by keiferski » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 2:59 AM UTC

commandar wrote: post #27

keiferski wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotcha. But wouldn't longer movies being in multiple pages/clips serve more advertising? I realize that the clips may not even be uploaded if a time limit is imposed, but I would assume that more clips = more potential ad clicks. I suppose also that the advances in Content ID (the copyright checking system) may only be effective on longer clips. All in all, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, a…

Youtube supports what are essentially commercial breaks on long videos already. The uploader can even choose to place them at logical breaks in the video. I was watching some in-the-ER/ridealong-with-the-cops type videos on a Youtube channel the other night, and the video would be interrupted on occasion by video ads in between scenes, etc.

I see. I should probably watch more Youtube before I start asking obvious questions about it.

Thanks!

Re: YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

#33

Post by roryokane » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 3:01 AM UTC

jonknee wrote: post #24

ThomPete wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is whether you would really want to go with YT? I mean the quality of the comments, the quality of the design (yes it's sheit). Vimeo seems like a much better space to seed your content.

Why not use both? I'd imagine the more views the better for educational videos.

You might want to use only one site if checking both sites to respond to comments would take too much time.

Re: YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

#34

Post by kellysutton » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 3:03 AM UTC

leeskye wrote: post #30

This is useless for 99% of the content creators out there. Only filmmakers/movie studios/or education use would benefit from this. People should realize that most online video content needs to be snack size (2-5 minutes MAX). Audiences are too fickle to watch more than a few minutes of video. The average video is watched 2 minutes and then people taper off. They would rather consume more pieces of video (quantity) th…

We're actually seeing the exact opposite on blip.tv. Average video length on our site of popular content is about 13 minutes.

Re: YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

#35

Post by kellysutton » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 3:07 AM UTC

plorkyeran wrote: post #29

gnubardt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even a professional online video platform if you need more control over quality and branding. There are several providers who offer plans starting at or less than $100/month. disclaimer: I work for Brightcove

Is "less than $100/month" supposed to sound cheap? That's still an order of magnitude more than what he was looking at.

For all of the idiosyncrasies having to do with being a video host with robust player technology, $100/month sounds cheap to me for your own thing.

Disclaimer: I work for blip.tv.

Re: YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

#36

Post by mambodog » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 3:40 AM UTC

So do I count as having "violated copyright rules" because Content ID incorrectly attributed the music in one of my videos to some artist I've never heard of? Which, by the way, is not uncommon.

Re: YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

#37

Post by nhangen » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 4:19 AM UTC

jonknee wrote: post #24

ThomPete wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is whether you would really want to go with YT? I mean the quality of the comments, the quality of the design (yes it's sheit). Vimeo seems like a much better space to seed your content.

Why not use both? I'd imagine the more views the better for educational videos.

I've always used YT for traffic, and Vimeo for display on a website.

Re: YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

#38

Post by lambda » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 4:50 AM UTC

Am I the only one who hates it when people talk about "copyrighted material" as if only mainstream commercial TV and movies are copyrighted? Every video uploaded to YouTube is copyrighted (OK, except for amazingly old video and video produced by the US government). Of course people are going to upload longer copyrighted material. What they mean to say is "copyright violating material."

Re: YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

#39

Post by yurylifshits » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 5:54 AM UTC

nhangen wrote: post #37

jonknee wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not use both? I'd imagine the more views the better for educational videos.

I've always used YT for traffic, and Vimeo for display on a website.

Exactly!!

Youtube generates a ton of serendipity watchers.

Re: YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

#40

Post by yurylifshits » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 5:55 AM UTC

kellysutton wrote: post #35

plorkyeran wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "less than $100/month" supposed to sound cheap? That's still an order of magnitude more than what he was looking at.

For all of the idiosyncrasies having to do with being a video host with robust player technology, $100/month sounds cheap to me for your own thing. Disclaimer: I work for blip.tv.

Thanks guys.

Indeed my choice is Youtube, Vimeo, Brightcove or Blip.tv :)