The internet video phenomenon has steadily gained popularity and continues to dominate the internet consumption arena with individuals opting to watch videos online as opposed to the now traditional television broadcasting hence spelling much doom for the latter. As competitor companies during their inception, Youtube and Google video came up with strategies to enhance their growth and likability. Youtube plunged into the market with a very liberal approach that would enable its users to watch countless video clips on its site (Karel et al., 2010). The users were also able to upload and share videos, an allocation that garnered the site much popularity making it the fifth most visited website by the summer of 2006. This immense success was largely attributed to the fact that the company had braced itself to counter any legal issues pertained to copyrighted content, their main field of specialization. Internet video hence achieved the kind of popularity and dominance it boasts of as a result of the sheer hard work and determination of these sites.
Google video on the other hand adopted a different line of endeavor at its inception mainly focusing on television captions with no allocation for actual videos. The site specialized in still images, text snippets among other read-only materials that enabled its users to be well acquainted with information regarding future events and shows. The site stepped up its mode of operation by adopting a user video interface to enable it to achieve its desired fete with users now able to generate and share videos on this platform (Conner, 2008).
To account for the failure of Google video; it’s imperative to substantiate the reasons that occasioned its decline in popularity as opposed to merely pointing them out. The restriction of user-generated content to the use of a downloadable plug-in from VideoLAN had an irreversible effect on the growth of the site since it troubled many users in its operation and hence necessitated their move to competitor sites which used faster and simpler technologies to watch videos (as sighted in Karel et al., 2010). Poor marketing strategies also contributed towards the failure of the site since despite the limited options it offered at inception coupled with the complexity in its operations, the company did not advertise the improvements it was making adequately and hence also kept prospective users at bay. The fact that users could only view still images of events as opposed to actual videos eventually proved to be a stumbling block too.
What is worth writing home about is the fact that both youtube and Google video employed various strategies, putting on offer lots of innovations to enhance their user base. Switching from the slow and complex plug-in used to watch videos to a much faster and less complicated flash technology was a considerable step in the evolution of Google video (Karel et al., 2010). The site also evolved to enable its users to watch and share videos online, an option not possible at its inception. Not mentioning the move by Google to add a link on its portal homepage to Google video would be quite an oversight since it largely contributed towards the growth of the site. The site also unveiled eight international versions which enabled it to achieve a wider appeal as a result of the broad spectra of diversity it now boasted of. The site incorporated various community features that enabled its users to add comments, labels, and even rate videos hence enhancing its interaction with users.
Youtube on the other hand came up with various strategies to enable it cut a niche for itself as a force to reckon with as far as internet video was concerned. In the run-up to its purchase by Google in 2006, it had undertaken considerable amounts of facelifts offering its users a lot more options to choose from. The site enabled its users to upload and share videos and other popular clips from various networks hence contributing immensely to its success. The addition of copyrighted materials from various media sources to its content also played an important role in the site’s advancement since this enabled its users to get their hands on materials that would have otherwise been out of their reach (Strangelove, 2010).
In conclusion, a sleek preview into the youtube site currently reveals a display of elegance and maturity judging by its layout and organization. The homepage has been customized by the inclusion of portals entailing a broad spectrum of human interests including sports, entertainment, music, and movies just to mention a few (Karel et al., 2010). The inclusion of account creation and sign-in options also add to the exclusivity of the site since this enables users with registered accounts unlimited access to the site’s data. Other services also available on the site like movie trailers and events yet to take place are also worthy of note since they add to its glamour. Users without registered accounts can not access most of the services like downloading certain materials from the site. Google video on the other hand boasts of a customized but rather plain site with a powerful search engine that can find any data at the request of a user. The site also offers the user various suggestions to enable them to get to their destination with ease. On the contrary, the site does not provide its users with insights in the absence of a valid account.
References
Conner, N. (2008). Google Apps:the missing manual.Carlfonia: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Karel, C., Matt, S., & Jason, M. (2010). YouTube, Google, and the Rise of Internet. Miami:Kellogg school of management.
Strangelove, M. (2010). Watching YouTube:extraordinary videos by ordinary people. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.