Quantcast

Don't have an account? Register Now! Forgot password?

Maximum IT
News

YouTube Fires Back at Naysayers, MythBusters Style

comment Commentsprint Printemail EmailDeliciousDiggStumbleUponRedditFacebookSlashdot

YouTube doesn't boast a cast consisting of Jamie Hyneman, Adam Savage, Tory Belleci, Grand Imahara, and Kari Byron, but that didn't stop the streaming video service from doing a MythBusters piece of its own, but in blog form. The blog post, which was posted this week, addresses several issues about YouTube products that the company says are all bunk.

The number one myth in YouTube's list is that the video service is limited to short-form user-generated content. YouTube responds by pointing out it has thousands of premium content partners, from Sony to Disney to Universal Music, and hundreds of full-length feature films and thousands of full-length TV episodes.

Other concerns YouTube addresses include the popular perception that YouTube videos are grainy and poor quality, traffic and growth are bad for the service's bottom line, advertiser's won't touch YouTube, and that the Google-owned video service is only monetizing 3 to 5 percent of the site. There are all false, or 'busted,' the site says, and you can read the reasoning here.

COMMENTS:6
COMMENTS
avatarThey left out this myth

7 out of 10 people who comment on youtube videos couldn't solve The following math problem: 1+2=N.

Someone needs to create a sister site for youtube just for comments. Maybe call it SmartYouTubeComments.com. Although, sometimes the real comments are good for a laugh.

Login or register to post comments
avatarWell....

 Yes, Kari's a good one, pregnant or not.

 Yes, their video is grainy. I see the HQ button, but it rarely does anything. It's only for the content added after that feature was implemented, and even then the full screen looks horrible. 70% of their videos were uploaded with the old quality.

 For years people fought with their TV antennas for a good picture. Then we got color. But we wanted better quality. Then we got Vcr's, but we wanted better quality. Then we got cable and sattellite, but we wanted better quality. Then we got DVD's and hi-def......

And suddenly I woke up one morning and people were happy with the way youtube looked. I just don't get it.

It's a great service, a real pioneer that built itself on user created mostlycr@p, but the one thing it was NOT was good quality. The HQ videos are a lot better than the old, but there's still too much low quality that exists.

 I think they can say they "have good quality capability now", but they should not be boasting that they "ARE" good quality.

 

_______________________________

"There's no time like the future."

Login or register to post comments
avatarIts not necessarily YouTubes

Its not necessarily YouTubes fault on the poor quality videos.  Its more about the uploader and what his recording quality was.

Login or register to post comments
avatarDoes anybody else think Kari

Does anybody else think Kari Byron is hot?

Login or register to post comments
avatarI guess

if you're into pregnant women

Login or register to post comments
avatarBoring

I didn't even know or care of these myths. It's a simple user-video uploading service. It used to be good but now it's starting to be a pain. Especially the HD content. I have a decent connection, yet it's still slow as f***. I believe they say it uses flash, too. After hearing about Foxit Reader....well I have heard a lot more negative feelings towards Adobe.

At least they "came through" on these "myths".

Login or register to post comments

This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works