What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
65 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31 Oh, yes. Streaming WMVs (which have problems in everything but IE under XP) and RealMedia is *so* much better.
Give me Flash any day. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18i know everyone loves to hate google video.. but, other than the google video STORE, i think it is much much better than youtube.
i suppose i just like clean interfaces that don't load tons of ***** that you don't want to see. google video is the best service for unlimited size and length videos (youtube has strict limits). it's also much faster and infinitely less annoying than youtube.
yeah i know, i'm probably the one person on the internet who has this opinion..
can someone tell me why you like youtube so much? i'd really like to know. - lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15You can save them as AVI files.
- JKimball, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Google Video does a good job, Don't know why poster doesn't like the look of the site either, I think it has a good look
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9They've had video ads on www.gamespot.com for a long time now. They're streaming WMV, I believe. INCREDIBLY ANNOYING!
- IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13YouTube has defninitely made Google sit up and realize how to implement a good video service site.
- atelophobee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Utube has made everyone wake up and smell the larger bandwidths... i'm just curious how this changing internet is gonna work when every ad is a video- who gets sound?!
- eatrains, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@chad78
Actually, Darwin Streaming Server is free, open source, and runs on Windows and Linux: http://developer.apple.com/opensource/server/streaming/index.html - phatfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My main problem with Google video is the fact all videos play at the current size of the browser window. So you end up with low bitrate video at about 300% size -- not nice.
You can get a sensibly sized window by using the (ironically) "fullscreen" option to open the video in a separate window, that can be re-sized down. But i would rather it plays at 100% to START, and not force me to faff around with resizing pop-ups. - jtrost, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Froogle is still in beta, and it's years old, so this will probably be in beta for several more years.
- masamunexs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I think google video is way perrtier than youtube. no need to overhaul it's look.
- teldin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You can resize the videos by clicking on the little down arrow at the bottom right of the video and selecting "Original Size". The setting is then kept when you are view additional videos.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Video sure plays a lot more smoothly and quickly on Google. On Youtube it takes a long time to load the player and I get a lot of pauses while it buffers. On Google it plays immediately, the interface is nicer (especially fullscreen when you press F11 in FF or IE), and the video never ever hiccups.
- atelophobee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6isn't 'everything' google in beta? i mean, i've been using their e-mail religiously for over a year, and it's always changing, which makes me assume it's still in "beta." i think it's google's way of introducing new products for use/opinion/users/ads, but not having to label it as a "new product" b/c it's still evolving. i think it's a great idea, except the more popular google becomes, the more people tend to RELY on their BETA products... what would you do it gmail became an extinct project?
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3they need to up the quailty of the videos, it seems alot worst than when it was first launched.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Already twenty two children bitching and whining about the look and quality of a FREE SERVICE.
Do continue. - Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you miss the point of their simplistic looks.
Its not to conserve bandwidth so much as it is to avoid the cluttered, portal from hell look which other sites went with.
Furthermore, due to the popularity of a 'clean interface', other search engines are emulating the simplistic looks of google; see http://search.yahoo.com as opposed to http://www.yahoo.com , or http://search.msn.com as opposed to http://www.msn.com . - lancefisher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I had a hard time deciding between using Google video and YouTube for videos taken on my digital camera. I ultimately chose Google Video because I could upload all of my videos even if they were over 100MB. The uploader isn't that big of deal. Entering the video information on the web (without being able to see the video) and then having to wait for it to be verified before I can blog it is quite a pain. Good job to Google for making some positive changes. There will still be more to do, but the interface is nice and simple.
- Tkkt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And porn... Someone please prove me wrong.
- MikeSD34, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Am I the only one that despises the YouTube player and it's small resolution?
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5oops, i didn't mean to bury you..
but anyhow, i don't think gmail is giong anywhere. i think they considered it an essential google service the first day they released it. it was a paradigm-changing email service..
but clearly it's a beta seeing as how they release new features every month.. but it might as well be a finished product, it's the best email on the web. - INHUMANITY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2By crappy look do you mean absurdly clean and easy to navigate? Just checking.
- Ovitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I want stats on how many times my video has been viewed, etc. and I love the upload tool. I hate web based things that always time out!
- Leech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4we need favorites or saved/starred feature in Google Videos... I preffer YouTube for this reason..
- Mocib, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well... the only thing Google Video needs and what I'd really like to see done is higher quality videos.
Thank you. - DevlinD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Since when does updating software and the fact that Google can do it quickly and often make it software beta?? Just because they choose not to take the route of annual timed product update rollouts doesn't mean their software is not up to production standard. Isn't the one of the main advantages of software as a service the fact that you can update it on the fly as often as you want??
- Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I'd like it in Quicktime, I have never had any problems with the Quicktime plugin, which is more than can be said for the Windows Media Player plugin.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://video.google.com/videouploadform (To upload the video if the maximum is 100MB) if it's bigger you have to use the "uploader".
- fifaigor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't get me wrong, I am all for simple design (www.apple.com for instance). But there has to be a design, which I find google to be lacking.
- chad78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1omg! I had never seen search.yahoo.com! If you take away the small text news thing, it's *exactly* like Google! That's crazy! Mod UP for the awesome insight!
- allthewhile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are stats. They're much better than youtube's btw.
- nfg05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
i'm just looking forward to all the revenge breakup videos posted for that "the breakup" movie tie-in. (webcam stripping anyone?) - fifaigor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haha, the fact that it is a free service does not prevent google from racking up good $$$ from it. People are just suggesting how to improve it. While it is undoubtedly a great service, I find the layout to be pretty cluttered.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed, and great use of "faff."
My big problem with it, too, is the video quality. I know they're shooting for low bandwidth usage, but what good is video if you cant' make it out. - apt11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google is so basic, no frills - i love it!
- MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Probably because of the millions of videos that they now store.
- soupisgoodfood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When are they going to deal with the keyword spamming problems and ad some kind of comment, rating, or feedback system so we know in advanced if the submitter doesn't know how to encode video properly (such as sound so bad it makes you hit mute, or using the wrong aspect ratio, etc.).
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now all they have to do is charge 50 cents more per TV episode (Brady Bunch anyone?) and use that to pay people like diggsters with absolutely nothing to do during the day but comment, so that we can at least edit the episodes so when previewing - we just don't see the damne intro every fukin time! How bout a one-liner fron the actual episode? Then I might be remiinded better as to whether or not.....
- chad78, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Quicktime Servers for streaming Quicktime files are *CRAZY EXPENSIVE*. We're talking they *START* at $10,000.
With Google's hardware crisis - I doubt they want to waste hardware money on a cluster of 10K servers so you can load movies of your cat falling off the TV.
Plus, is there a good Quicktime player for Linux? (I know there are projects to do it - but have any of them released a non-alpha version of a decent player?) - ProvocateurCrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Google video Alex Jones
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Why do people digg these comments down. Are they afraid of the truth?
Although I hate flash videos, at least they can be downloaded to play on vlc, and these video sites do get more "average users" doing more high bandwidth *****. - atelophobee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0google makes their living on [whoever] bitching and whining about the look and quality of their FREE SERVICEs... that's why they're always improving their tihs.
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Making it more functional, intuitive, OK. But pretty? *Pretty*? I'm assuming these are the same people who are constantly bitching about Craigslist because it's not teh Web2.0. Who cares. It works. It doesn't take ages to load. You can actually read the text.
In other words, don't break ***** to make it "pretty." You'd think people would learn their lesson on that. But then most of the people bitching about it are probably under 15. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Also, more copyrighted content.
- eckwal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice... now they have copied almost all the youtube features except for discussions and mobile posting. so much for "innovation".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, Google is sort of like Bruce Lee's "style of no style": the "design of no design."
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OK. You're asking Google to be an also-ran, to chase the same fads that the rest of the inane "Web2.0" crowd is chasing, to look the same as everybody else. They have a design. It's called minimalist. Their entire existence is based on function, screw making a bunch of eye candy that clutters their stuff and makes it longer to load.
As it is, Google has a distinctive appearance. That's worth a great deal. The market leader isn't going to throw that away to look like every other site out there. What they're doing works - they understand what the rest don't, which is that eye candy doesn't add to functionality (it often detracts), and pretty web pages don't make money.
Google knows what they're doing. They don't care what a bunch of wanna-be graphic designers think. - breakfastpants, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Search on Google video for "Google Tech Talks". You get this: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=google+tech+talks
Search Google (web) for it. You get this: http://www.google.com/search?q=google+tech+talks&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
This is their own content, and you can't even find it.
I think that this shows that Google still hasn't done any new magic with search. They are still relying on their patented tech which works great for web search, but in everything else they are just as ***** as web search was back in '95. - atelophobee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0well, i think if you label it "beta" as opposed to "1.0" or some other "official release" then it becomes a big news story, a big deal, an important advertising revenue, etc... leaving it as a "beta" gives google more liberties, both in their future with the product/service, and what they can offer and take away from the p/s. i think it's a smart idea, but google seems to like it too much. i never know what i should be investing my time in, and what will drop off the shelves in a month.
and yeah, i agree gmail's not going anywhere - and doesn't that normally mean it should be brought out of beta?
i agree it's the best e-mail on the web... so why not release it officially and summarize the amazing features, storage, etc. so everyone in the world can appreciate it? or does the 'beta' tag have nothing to do with #s of users for a company like google? word of mouth/blog seems to be googles MO anyway. - lancefisher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0In order for a free service to be successful people have to like it. These companies still have to build software to please their users even if we aren't the ones paying for it, otherwise advertisers will quit paying them.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is