A very important feature of Web 2.0 is the creation of platforms for sharing multimedia content on the Internet. These services are based on user-driven content because any user can register, upload, view, and share video clips. After this however, there were still the challenges of efficient storage and delivery. Each sharing site had to come up with an efficient model to solve this challenge. The variations in the models created currently accounts for the differences between such websites and their services. Two very popular such sites are Vimeo and YouTube. In this publication, I will attempt to analyze, compare and differentiate both sites.
Side by side above are videos embedded from Vimeo and YouTube on the left and on the right respectively. Both videos were uploaded from the same file. From studies that compare Vimeo and YouTube, it is safe to say both video sharing sites are at par because they both have merits and demerits. In recent past, YouTube had a poorer video conversion model that accounted for lower quality of their content as against that of Vimeo. As we speak however, both sites currently apply similar standards and techniques in their video conversion process, which result in similar outcomes. If quality is no longer an issue, it becomes clear that their individual uniqueness is sequel to other variations like that of the distribution model.
A major aspect of the distribution model is content pushing. This is a style where videos are made available to the receiver based on publisher request – not the receiver. That is how other video thumbnails appear after watching a clip on YouTube. The popularity push model allocates more resources to content related to popular subjects so as to improve the typical end-user experience. There is also the age push model in which videos that attain high number of views soon after they are published get the push. Under the subject of content pushing, YouTube has a more aggressive approach than Vimeo. A receiver seeking for one video may end up watching a whole lot more in one session. This helps keep publisher content from isolation and therefore attracts more and more publishers and subsequently more visitors. Publishers may derive more potential exposure from this. This is one of the factors responsible for the massive community on YouTube as against Vimeo.
There’s a downside to this, however. Many publishers work hard to set up their website, blog, hub or lens, but because they embed a video from YouTube, they stand a chance of losing their visitors back to YouTube. This is how it happens. Once such video plays through, a bunch of other related, recommended or spotlight videos are displayed by YouTube. This has the tendency to win such visitors attention away from the rest of the content with the embedded video.
Other differences between both services include their upload limits, which is measured in file size on Vimeo and in minutes on YouTube. Vimeo also puts a price tag on upgrade category while all categories on YouTube are free. Finally, in displaying videos, Vimeo only has a floating progress bar that disappears while YouTube always have their brand logo displayed over the video with a conspicuous, space consuming progress bar running beneath the video. In general, the choice on which site to use when posting a specific video should depend on the specific purpose of the video.
No comments:
Post a Comment