YouTube just announced the availability for Windows users of a desktop uploader (install page here). Users will now be able to do bulk file uploads. The company also raised its file size limit from 100 MB to 1 GB. Length will remain at 10 minutes though, so that just means more high quality video will be available on the site.
Google Video remains the option of choice for long form video uploaders but some YouTube users have long complained about the small file size requirements and resulting low quality. Vimeo, a tiny boutique competitor owned by IAC, opened to HD uploads at the end of last month.
A Mac version of the uploader is in the works, the company said. Hopefully the time limit will be changed as well - the YouTube brand is so strong there's no reason not to encourage users to store their full length videos there. Video archiving is important work and YouTube should be up to the task.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: YouTube Releases Multi-file Uploader, Raises File Limits to 1 GB.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1760
It must be a relief to many people who upload videos to YouTube that you can now use a program to upload your files all at once AND your files can be 10 times as large, at 1 GB instead... Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Several video sharing sites were doing this months ago. Why did it take YouTube so long to implement this.
Perhaps, it a concern that members would be uploading more spam videos.
Hope no one abuses this.
Posted by: * Miss Universe | November 8, 2007 8:32 PMKind of surprised that people are still so reliant on YouTube when there are so many other video site that had been offering high quality videos, and longer lengths for months already.
But it is good to see YouTube playing catch up.
Posted by: Web Directory | November 8, 2007 8:38 PMI have to say the length limit is a giant pain.
Posted by: Bud Gibson | November 8, 2007 9:52 PM>>> Several video sharing sites were doing this months ago. Why did it take YouTube so long to implement this.
Posted by: quirkyalone | November 9, 2007 2:15 AMThis is great new. Although many others have high quality video , they don't have a lot in their database. This will make youtube even popular. I wish youtube can remove 10 min lilimt or at least 30 min.
Posted by: Norman | November 9, 2007 2:57 AMGee, it's good to know that they have raised the limit.. this also means that MORE people will upload videos on youtube and they will have an enormous traffic..
Thanks for the info :)
Posted by: Michael Woo | November 9, 2007 4:05 AMAah. So it means we can upload larger vids. Yippe!! Won't have to get paused in the middle of a Joke on a Lee Evans concert . LOL.
Posted by: Sujoy | November 9, 2007 4:51 AMThanks for the Info!
Great move from Youtube but this will only help in video quality. I really wish they would remove this 10-minutes-only limitation in each video upload :/
Posted by: Stelabouras | November 9, 2007 4:52 AMWell one thing is for sure, we will get better quality video's.
Posted by: Dan Schawbel | November 9, 2007 5:47 AMAgreed. YouTube definitely needs to increase the time limit to 60 minutes.
If the new measurement of a websites stickiness is no longer page views, but rather time-on-site, you'd think that Google would take the first step in keeping people at YouTube longer. The best way to keep someone engaged is through video, and the easiest way they can do that is keep users watching longer videos. There's some logic for you.
Posted by: Voices.com CEO | November 9, 2007 5:48 AMHumm, that uploader is available for several days now, why did they just announce it now o.o
Posted by: dude01 | November 9, 2007 6:33 AMThanks for the heads up, Marshall!
Paired with the InVideo Ads announced a while back, this new development is clearly the next step in demonstrating that YouTube takes quality video output seriously.
What would be the point in YouTube courting advertisers without first ensuring that the content that they can advertise against is sufficiently high quality? As in, the quality deemed acceptable on a medium these advertisers already understand: TV.
Disclosure: my company helps content owners --from independent companies to brand advertisers-- publish content on the top video sharing and social networking sites on the web, including YouTube.
It'll be interesting to see how the big media companies react to this. @11, the reason YouTube announced it now is probably to make sure it was quietly tried and tested by the YouTube community first.
There’s more insight on our combined website and blog: www.realfresh.tv
Posted by: Chi-chi Ekweozor | November 9, 2007 8:19 AMI was offered this last Saturday when I was uploading something but since it was only 83MB I didn't bother to use it. I didn't realize it was such a big deal.
Posted by: Michael K Pate | November 9, 2007 8:34 AMNo matter how big your uploaded file is, it is converted to 320x240 video with mono audio. So can anyone enlighten me how useful this is? It is just a waste of you uploading time.
Posted by: Bill | November 9, 2007 9:31 AMRight on. It's one good news. Good to know they came up with that idea.
Posted by: Dish | November 9, 2007 12:06 PMRegarding the time limit, my company was allowed to post videos to our channel (www.youtube.com/insight24) that were up to 90 minutes long. Because we focus on business/tech content, the extended time was needed to show the full presentations and that's probably why we were granted an exception.
Per voices.com CEO, it's be interesting to see if the longer time does translate into longer viewing times.
Posted by: Cece Salomon-Lee | November 9, 2007 1:02 PMSplashCast launched last February with the ability to upload multiple file types.
Posted by: alex williams | November 9, 2007 5:36 PMBlame the money-grubbing Big Content for limiting YouTube to videos ten minutes in length.
Posted by: Dave | November 9, 2007 7:09 PMThis is great! So now when I create my YouTube English lessons, the quality will be better. This is great for online English teachers who want to make better and better English lessons for their students.
Posted by: John Buchanan | November 9, 2007 9:52 PMGreat! Better quality videos...
Posted by: mark | November 10, 2007 10:16 AMFor bloggers like us this is pretty sweet, increasing the size 10x will enable to better serve our readers. Once again, YouTube is leading the market.
Posted by: Bijoux | November 10, 2007 2:24 PMBijoux
www.jeforma.com
Has anyone considered that a lot of PR companies will be uploading commercial and other commercial generated content that will look like user generated? By increasing the limit they can produce higher quality and none to be the wiser. :(
Posted by: Nature Wallpaper | November 10, 2007 2:42 PMSeveral sites have unlimited upload lengths and file sizes, but aren't "popular" like YouTube at this time.
Posted by: Slacker | November 11, 2007 1:03 AMhttp://askaslacker.blogspot.com
Yea there have been plenty of sites doin this for a while and the quality of the video will stay the same since its compressed. There are new sites popping up, such as Garfum.com, that lets you upload as many videos as you want no limit. Besides why would anyone want to upload to youtube when there content is just viewed? If your serious about your videos and want to make something with it, i found garfum to be a solid site for that. It seems as though they have structured competition with money prizes. Im still new to it but it seems promising...and something else thats awesome is you get a free email...its like ur challengerid@garfum.com its pretty sweet. who knows this might be the new site to come
Posted by: Mike G | November 11, 2007 2:34 PMyea i have seen this site on youtube on such, through some video like garfum tahiti girl or w/e...it doesnt seem too bad
Posted by: Dude | November 11, 2007 2:36 PMok its very good no?
Posted by: Datta | November 14, 2007 2:34 AMWhy is this useful? Seems to me that you don't need 1GB for content that is transcoded to 320x240 with a mono audiotrack.
Unless, of course, YouTube wants higher res content being uploaded to the site already, in preparation for higher quality purposing of content at a later stage...
Should we start pushing up videos at full resolution (e.g. 720x576 for PAL)? Or even HD at 720p?
Posted by: Richard | November 20, 2007 5:33 AM