Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Video Not Ready for Prime Time?

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jan 13, 2006 03:13 PM
from the not-quite-past-two-o's-in-goog dept.
elfguy writes "Ars Technica has a piece on the Google Video Store, and their opinion is that it seems a little rushed to market. The interface is very bad, with paid and free videos mixed together. While free videos can be viewed in Flash on any platform, their paid DRM'ed videos require a Windows program, and the page tells you the available formats only after you purchase it." From the article: "As I pointed out in my coverage of the keynote, for all of its evangelization of open standards, Google has done an about-face with the video store. Not only are the videos protected by DRM, but Google has gone and rolled its own home-grown solution instead of using one of the current solutions. On one level, that makes sense: Apple doesn't share its DRM, and Microsoft is Google's biggest competition. However, inflicting yet another flavor of DRM on the public goes against the desire of many in Congress and in the consumer electronics industry to see a single, unified standard emerge."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • What's so shocking? Is it because this is Google and Google never makes mistakes? If you think that, then let's talk precision, recall and F-measure on their famous search engine.

    Google is going to pound "new" technology after "new" technology at us, so prepare yourself for some that might not be useful or need polishing. I would blame this on the fact that:

    Engineers can devote 20 percent of their time to projects of their choice.

    From this article [sfgate.com] and I think that would explain why we get so ma

  • ..... Their "Do No Evil" mantra by coming up with such a crappy UI and yet another DRM?
    • may just make it clear to all that DRM isn't going to solve Hollywood's perceived problem, and perhaps they need to look at the "problem" again.
      • Exactly! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mrchaotica (681592) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:30PM (#14466563)
        I don't really care if Google is being evil or not; braindead conflicting "standards" and in-fighting among the DRM camp can only be a good thing for us.
  • Google Video Beta (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bewmIES (251890) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:15PM (#14466405)
    What part of beta do these people not get?
    • Re:Google Video Beta (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arrrrg (902404) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:22PM (#14466473)
      Exactly.... I'm sure improvements to the interface will be coming as they get more of this kind of feedback. As for the paucity of content, remember that anyone can sell a video on video.google.com (with google taking 30%? of the fee). Thus, it is in their best interest to launch the store as early as possible, to entice more copyright owners to sell their videos through their service. This is in stark contrast (I assume) to the model taken by, i.e., iTunes, where content is solicited from a few large corporations.
      • iTunes, et al (Score:5, Informative)

        by soupdevil (587476) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:47PM (#14466703)
        Most online music stores, including iTunes, post any album sold by CD Baby, unless the artist opts out of digital sales. CD Baby will sell anyone's music -- all you have to do to get on iTunes/Napster, etc., is to send 5 CDRs of your album to CD Baby, and wait for the music stores to update their databases.
    • by GweeDo (127172) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:22PM (#14466475) Homepage
      Oh dear crap stop this!

      If it is so beta that it just doesn't work then don't release it. So far any "beta" from Google has atleast been polished and worked well. This simply does not. And some of the issues aren't a "is it beta" or not question, like the DRM.

      So please, I love Google to, but drop the "its beta crap". They are a corporation that is taking your/my money. I want quality products. This simply isn't.
      • If it is so beta that it just doesn't work then don't release it.

        Except it does work. And it's labeled as a beta, which is a clear warning sign to anyone who's paying attention that it might have issues. Don't like it? Don't use it. Meanwhile, the people who do like it would like you to shut the fuck up.

      • by Irish_Samurai (224931) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:54PM (#14466768)
        As I understand it, Google video is actually charging the People who sell the vidoes a fee for handling the transaction.

        Google isn't charging any end users for the service. I didn't have to pay to browse the videos, and neither did anyone else. Your argument that "I want quality products" is completely misplaced, the only people who should be bitching about this being a "beta" are the people whe sell on it.

        You may view it as a technicality, but it's very clear in a business sense. This software IS beta, it's not finished. Google is charging vendors who wish to participate in this beta a fee for handling the transaction. When Google gets adequate feedback, they will alter the software. When the software becomes extremely user friendly, Google will raise the transaction rate and possibly begin charging the end user.

        The product is marketed as a service for selling and finding videos. You mistake the fact that you have to pay for a video with that of having to pay for a googles product.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      What part of beta do these people not get?

      Ahh, so you subscribe to Microsoft's definition of "beta", which means that it stays up long enough to do some amount of testing, so lets through it at the customers and let them bang the hell out of it.

      Beta does not mean that it is perfect, but beta is supposed to be that step just before it does ship, which means you would not expect any MAJOR issues. Not being able to tell if something is drm'ed or not until after you "purchase" it to me falls into the cate
    • What part of Google charging money for a service that isn't up to par (apparently) don't you get? Who cares if it has the word beta next to the name?

      Also the main point in the summary (and through much of the article) is the DRM issue, and that's not something likely to change from beta to release (assuming that they do someday move ahead from beta).

      • If you want to pay for something, go ahead. If you don't like it, don't pay for it; duh.

        I don't usually have trouble with SkypeIn (also still in beta), but there are times when a call just cuts out. Heres the trouble: I don't know why; it could be from SkypeIn, someone calling me from a cellphone who's switching towers, or any other link that breaks in the chain.

        I still pay for SkypeIn, because I can get calls while I'm abroad with people having to pay only local rates (which sometimes amounts to free).
    • by 0kComputer (872064) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:37PM (#14466631)
      Google "Beta" doesn't carry a whole lot of weight with me seeing as how almost all their crap is beta. Case in point - Google news, that thing has been in beta for going on 5 years now.
      • Google News will come out of beta once they learn how to turn a profit on it. However, once they start selling ad space on it, their usual method of generating revenue, they're going to run into violations from the sites their scraping news from.

        1. Create a sweet news site
        2. Form a large following
        3. ???
        4. Profit
        5. Come out of beta
      • by bradleyland (798918) on Friday January 13 2006, @05:25PM (#14467672)
        Google isn't stupid. They've turned beta into a marketing ploy. Every body wants to be "in". Google Betas have traditionally been "in", so Google releases everything as beta to ride the wave.

        How many people beat their door down to participate in the Gmail beta? Why not roll the same effect into their other services.

        Soylent green is people!!!
  • The article wasn't all negative:
    Google introduced one feature that should help make Google Video more popular with owners of some handheld devices: Non-DRMed videos can be downloaded in iPod- and PSP-friendly formats. Allowing iPod and PSP owners to bypass what can be the sometimes-tedious conversion process is a smart move on Google's part.
  • . The interface is very bad, with paid and free videos mixed together. While free videos can be viewed in Flash on any platform, their paid DRM'ed videos require a Windows program, and the page tells you the available formats only after you purchase it.

    The interface isnt bad, its just simple (which is good in my books). There are links which let you view only the free/paid content or both. The search works pretty well.You could call the interface minimalitic but what else did you expect from Google ? The
    • Re:Interface is ok (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jalefkowit (101585) <jason.jasonlefkowitz@net> on Friday January 13 2006, @03:47PM (#14466705) Homepage
      The interface isnt bad, its just simple (which is good in my books).

      If it allows you to purchase videos that won't work on your system without ever warning you of that prior to purchase, it is indeed bad, not "simple".

      Imagine if when you bought a DVD from Amazon they would just pick-to-ship by title, mixing discs of all different region codes together. When you got your new DVD, popped it in your player, and discovered that you had bought a Region 3 DVD that was unplayable on your Region 1 player, would you thank Amazon for "simplifying" the process? Or would you be upset?

      My bet is you'd be upset -- especially when Amazon could obviate the problem altogether by simply matching your address (or what local store you buy from) to the appropriate region - which they do.

      "Simple" makes doing the right thing easy. "Bad" makes doing the wrong thing easy. Google Video's UI is bad.

      • Not a fair comparison. iTunesMS runs in iTunes, an application which you download. Google's video store runs inside a browser window. As for wasting resources, iTunes is the one to complain about, with its iPod services running in the background, even if you don't have an iPod.
        • Granted iTunes is an application, but when you're just browsing the music store, most of what it does is rendering that any browser could do. Considering the AJAX services Google has created like GMail and auto-completion in search, I have no doubt they could significantly improve Google Video if they wanted to.

          As to resources, iTunes seems to be more of a resource hog than Safari, but less than Firefox on the Mac, so I don't see anything to complain about there.
      • by Tim Browse (9263) on Friday January 13 2006, @05:18PM (#14467591)
        I knew one day I would see someone using the words 'iTunes' and 'fast' in the same sentence without the words 'is not' in there somewhere - I just didn't think it would be so soon.
  • Not just that (Score:5, Informative)

    by elfguy (22889) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:20PM (#14466460) Homepage
    It's not just the fact that it doesn't look pretty.

    1- When you buy the video, you are told "requires Windows XP and an Internet connection". You only find out AFTER buying it which format it comes in.

    2- When you buy the video, you buy the right to stream it only. If you try to download the video, it will only download a small file and STILL stream the actual video from Google, so you cannot view it offline.

    3- Because of the special DRM, there is no way to put paid Google videos on iPod or other mobile devices.
  • by BushCheney08 (917605) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:20PM (#14466461)
    Look over there at the horizon. I think I see an E. And is that a V slowly coming up behind it?
  • I love Google, but I am tired of this 'it's in BETA' excuse. They have had stuff in beta for years it seems. Look at their news and email services... they are still in beta! So if problems occur, they can just blame it on being in beta?!?!? I think not.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
    • What I read in your whiny comment above is "I love google, but I am mad at google, I have no idea what I want." Google is kind enough to label their beta software as beta, unlike Microsoft, or RedHat. Take it for what it is, and don't use it if you don't like it.
    • What, and Microsoft's model is much better? They release software that SHOULD be in beta as a final release, and then deal with the million remaining vulnerabilities, etc. later. IMHO at least Google is being honest about the status of their products.
  • The Register had a similar piece yesterday [theregister.co.uk] - pretty much the same complaints: "So far, it's just a really crap web site"...
  • I am not sure what the fuss is about...

    The interface is not all THAT clunky, but releasing in BETA for a very long time is generally what they do for just about everything. The Google search itself was considered beta for, what, close to 3 years... GMail is still beta and they have millions of Gmail users.

    Now they big fat wallets - does that mean they will do things differently?

    Not likely. :o)
  • No wonder consumers are rejecting it.

  • using words like "inflict" and not pointing out that "against the desire of many in congress" also means that there are people in congress in favor tells me the author of this one is pretty biased.
  • Another DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Toasty981 (43996) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:29PM (#14466556) Homepage

    On one level, that makes sense: Apple doesn't share its DRM, and Microsoft is Google's biggest competition. However, inflicting yet another flavor of DRM on the public goes against the desire of many in Congress and in the consumer electronics industry to see a single, unified standard emerge."

    Good! Muddle up the field more. The more confusing this stuff gets for the average consumer, the more they'll become aware of DRM and its potenially adverse repercussions.

    If Congress and the electronics lobby were successful, we'd be forced into a crappy DRM scheme with little recourse. More DRM is good for us consumers; we can go elslewhere if the DRM scheme of one provider is horribly crippled.

    A unified DRM scheme would no doubt include some form of hardware "Trusted Device" nonsense that would make life needlessly frustrating. Companies have the right to protect their products and services, but we certianly deserve the freedom to walk away and try some other firm's DRM. Hopefully one that is minimally intrusive.
  • Rushed Indeed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheOtherAgentM (700696) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:31PM (#14466570)
    It seems like Google's Video Store would possibly work for independent media, but it's so chaotic for mainstream media. I look at it and I cringe. It looks like those shady online stores that you are cautious about buying from, because of their look. I don't think the Windows only part is rushed necessarily. Google has always been a Windows only company. There are, of course, a few exceptions, but even their web applications are much better supported by Internet Explorer than Safari. Take GMail for instance. It doesn't surprise me that they require a Windows program to play the video.
  • by butterwise (862336) <butterwise AT gmail> on Friday January 13 2006, @03:31PM (#14466571)
    I think Google needs to bundle all of their services together (Maps, Video, Print, etc.) into one packeage where you can go for everything. The new service: Google Master.

    Of course, initially it would have to be Google Master Beta...
  • by Lije Baley (88936) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:35PM (#14466611)
    A single, unified, fixed government standard for DRM is the way to go. Write your Congressman today! It would be awesome -- no more fussing around with every DRM d'jour. Maybe even a new acronym -- CORE -- Crack Once, Read Everything!!
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:37PM (#14466625)

    I saw a piece on this the other day, so I checked out the Web site. I'm one of those people who is pretty critical of bad UIs (just ask my co-workers). I don't see any major problems with their Web site UI. It's nothing especially good or bad. I did not have any problem using it. I'm not too keen on the DRM, as it seems to be implemented and it seems a little deceptive if you can't actually download the files for viewing, only stream them. That isn't really buying a video, just subscribing to a service that will stream it for you. It makes it pretty useless for watching shows on your laptop while commuting, or on a drive.

    My opinion is the service is technologically too limited to be useful to me, but the UI is just fine.

  • Not the first (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Life700MB (930032) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:39PM (#14466644)

    Some commenters have said that, althought every Google is working on is labelled as Beta, all of them seem to be very polished and ready.

    They must have forgotten that little cache app fiasco, the web browsing accelerator that was so crappy it had to be removed from the public access.

    Not because is by Google it has to be good by definition.


    --
    Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
  • by brundlefly (189430) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:48PM (#14466710)
    I respectfully disagree with the topic post. It was a perfect success for me.

    I went to video.google.com, typed in Paris Hilton, and 5 seconds later I was watching a video of her in a skin-tight suit washing herself down with soapy water.

    What's not to like about that?
  • As if a million Google supporters cried out at once, and then were silent.

    It's Friday the 13th, I think good has taken it's first serious step towards the dark side.
  • by beisbol (173766) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:52PM (#14466755)
    I was reading an NBA related blog where someone was speaking about their experience purchasing NBA game videos from Google Video. Apparently, many of the videos are cut off prior to the end of the game, in the 3rd quarter frequently, with NO 4th quarter coverage. This seems to defeat one of the purposes of offering NBA game videos: so the consumer can watch the game and find out who wins. The purchaser contacted Google Video, who told him "sorry, all sales are final." They definitely have a lot of kinks to iron out, one of them being ripping off consumers buying NBA game videos. See here [truehoop.com] for the blog post I'm speaking about.
  • by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke (850482) on Friday January 13 2006, @03:54PM (#14466763)
    "If I buy a video once, do I need to buy it again to watch it on another computer?
    No. Once you buy a video, you can download it to other computers up to several times."

    I wonder how many "several" is?
  • by RomulusNR (29439) on Friday January 13 2006, @04:01PM (#14466824) Homepage
    This is not the only non-open Google product to date. Pretty much all of Google's portfolio that doesn't come in or out of the main search page is closed-standard. Google Maps is one of the rare recent shining examples of openness, but Maps as a resource in itself was orphaned by Google when it stuffed and devalued it into Google Local.

    In the meantime... Google Earth, Picasa, Google Talk, Google Desktop, Google Deskbar, and now Google DRM Video are notoriously limited to commercial platforms and/or tools. So much for Google being the preferred choice of the O/S world.
  • by ewhac (5844) on Friday January 13 2006, @04:10PM (#14466933) Homepage Journal
    I have a proposal for a unified approach to media copy protection. This approach is patent- and royalty-free, only requires technology that is already available, and can be implemented in a very short timeframe for very little engineering cost. The approach has already been tried on a fairly large scale in the computer industry, with tremendous success:

    None at all.

    Seriously. Copy protection is completely unnecessary. While media vendors wait for the Perfect Copy Protection (which will never come), they are leaving money on the table right now.

    So, you can wait for the major industry players to settle on a common framework for media copy protection which will work across computers, media centers, PDAs, cell phones, portable game systems, etc. (not bloody likely; they all are jockeying to get single-source lock-in); or you can forego the copy protection "requirement" and start making money now by selling media in common media formats now.

    Better get moving; your fickle shareholders aren't going to wait forever for you to get your asses in gear.

    Schwab

  • by rklrkl (554527) on Friday January 13 2006, @06:28PM (#14468168) Homepage
    I must say that it is fun to keep reloading the "Popular" Google Video page and loading in the interesting-looking free videos. Some of them are very well done, although there's some blatant copyright infringement going on (plenty of TV show clips and music video clips in there!). The fact that their Flash player works cross-platform for video and sound (yes, even on Linux!) is very impressive too.

    However, the paid video stuff is a total embarrassment and arguably the worst thing that Google have ever released in their entire history. It's overpriced, not available outside of North America in many cases [yes, Google blocks some paid content to non-US/Canadian countries!], DRM-restricted (often with "you can only watch for a day" limits too!), requires Windows, can't be viewed offline (online streaming only), is often "old" material and is annoyingly mixed in the "Popular" page with the free ones (are you *seriously* telling me that the most popular paid ones are loaded anywhere near as many times as the most popular free ones?).

    Apart from the utterly lousy presentation/DRM/etc. of the Google Video paid material, there's not much of it either (I mean, one episode of CSI so far for $1.99 - one-day pass on Windows only, blocked to European users (!!) and you've got to be online and can't copy it to any other device? How many times can you say "WTF?!"?).

    And, of course, we can't go without mentioning BitTorrent/P2P - which is the #1 rival to *any* paid video streaming business. We're seeing downloadable, DRM-free, HD/widescreen, DivX-encoded TV content literally 2 or so hours after the programme finishes. I know which one I'd prefer to see (and if it could be done legally, I'd be willing to subscribe on a per-month basis).

  • There's Beta .... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fm6 (162816) on Saturday January 14 2006, @01:12AM (#14469851) Homepage Journal
    ...and there's totally non-functional.

    I laughed when I read the part of about "rushed to market". That's a stock phrase that just doesn't apply to Google products. They can't "rush to market" because they pay zero attention to the market. They only have one profitable product (AdSense), but that product is so profitable that nobody has to pay attention to "the market". So they just keep inventing Cool Stuff, and pushing it out. That's why new features keep appearing on Google.com with no advance notice.

    Right now, you're saying, "What's wrong with that?" Well, if all you want is hacker toys, nothing. But some us get a little impatient that Google products stay "Beta" for years, and never get their rough edges polished off.

    Take Google maps. Yeah, it's a great app. I always try it first for directions. Sometimes I just sit and play with it, it's so cool. But it's how many years now and it's still "Beta". And even though Yahoo Maps is much less fun to work with, I still go back to it sometimes, because Google maps still doesn't memorize addresses for you or plug in Yellow Pages entries.

    With Google, "Beta" doesn't mean "This is a preliminary version." It means "Here's as much of the product as we feel like working on. We won't bother with all the boring stuff that makes a mature application, because just thought of some other Really Cool Stuff we'd rather be working on."