Sticking it to Google: Is Vimeo an adequate replacement for YouTube?

[coip]

Google playing hardball with Microsoft over Windows Phone has really turned me off. While I was once a loyal Google user (Gmail, Maps, Drive, Search, etc.), I decided that Android was garbage and I wanted to switch over to Windows Phone (a great decision). If Google had fully supported Windows Phone I may have simply switched operating systems but continued using Google services. But they don't, and for some people this makes them choose to stay on Android because they notice that Google doesn't support Windows Phone. I went the other route: if they didn't want to make there applications available to me, I'd switch services (because, for me, the operating system is more important than the applications, assuming there are adequate substitutes). Thus, now I use Outlook, HERE, SkyDrive, Bing, etc. and I think all of them are better than Google's offerings so I'm quite happy that I am nowt Google-free.

There is one exception: YouTube. While I don't personally upload any videos or even ever go to YouTube to search for videos, I cannot avoid encountering YouTube videos. Friends post links on Facebook, if I search Bing for videos 95% of them are YouTube links, even companies that I thought wouldn't want to use YouTube (Nokia, and even Microsoft itself) publish their videos on YouTube. It's a downright monopoly. I have two questions:

1) is Vimeo (or another streaming service) a good YouTube replacement (i.e., is there a lot of content, is the quality of streaming the same, is the Windows Phone app good?), and

2) Why do companies that compete with Google (like Nokia and Microsoft) solely post their videos on YouTube? Why don't they try to use a competing service (like Vimeo)? I'm not talking about delisting all of their videos from YouTube (I realize YouTube is so huge that you need to list your videos there for people to see them). I mean more so why, outside of YouTube, they don't post videos on a different site. For instance, if Microsoft or Nokia posts an official video link on Twitter, it always goes to a YouTube video. Why not link the video somewhere else?

 

[jhguth]

I prefer Vimeo to YouTube for browsing and hosting, but the types of videos are a little different. IMO that's a benefit, but if you are looking for the latest teenage girl opinion on your favorite makeup... probably stick to YouTube.

^no commercial videos on vimeo unless you pay, that's one reason

 

[coip]

I prefer Vimeo to YouTube for browsing and hosting, but the types of videos are a little different. IMO that's a benefit, but if you are looking for the latest teenage girl opinion on your favorite makeup... probably stick to YouTube.

^no commercial videos on vimeo unless you pay, that's one reason

That's interesting. Why would Vimeo charge for commercial videos and basically incentivize every corporation to post on YouTube instead? I'm surprised there is not other video sharing site that is going straight up for YouTube's market.

 

[o0Nighthawk0o]

I just recently dropped Google completely and was looking for a replacement for YouTube also. However I was looking for a place to be able to upload videos as well.

I looked at Vimeo and DailyMotion. I ended up at DailyMotion because they seemed to be less restrictive of what could be uploaded and how often. So far I have been happy. And very glad to be done with Google.

 

[themobiledivide]

The reason why corporate all post their videos on Youtube is that Google indexes every video on youtube into their search engine immediately. Correctly tagged a video becomes the first search item listed under the default search engine in the world Google. YouTube compression is terrible vs Vimeo, the community is even worse but unfortunately videos on their platform still get the most views.

 

[coip]

The reason why corporate all post their videos on Youtube is that Google indexes every video on youtube into their search engine immediately. Correctly tagged a video becomes the first search item listed under the default search engine in the world Google. YouTube compression is terrible vs Vimeo, the community is even worse but unfortunately videos on their platform still get the most views.

Right, I understand why they post the videos to YouTube, but I don't understand why they solely post the videos to YouTube and then promote only those YouTube videos on their other sites (e.g., on their Twitter pages). Why not post it to Vimeo or another service (like, their own website) and on YouTube, but then when they 'advertise' the link on Twitter or elsewhere, the link goes to the non-YouTube version. That way it's still on YouTube and they get those benefits (the Google indexing, for instance), but they don't promote YouTube any more than they need too.

 

[jhguth]

what you are describing would violate the Vimeo TOS

 

[coip]

what you are describing would violate the Vimeo TOS

Can you expound on that?

 

[jhguth]

https://forums.windowscentral.com/e...ttps%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2Fterms&token=HRVHR4CX

COMMERCIAL USE: You may not use the Vimeo Service for commercial purposes unless:

• You are a Vimeo PRO user, in which case you may use and access the Vimeo Service for commercial and non-commercial purposes, subject to compliance with the Vimeo PRO Guidelines; or
  
• You are a small-scale independent production company, non-profit, or artist, in which case you may use the Vimeo Service to showcase or promote your own creative works.

 

[coip]

https://forums.windowscentral.com/e...ttps%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2Fterms&token=m3wsuOo4

This is an interesting policy that seems counterintuitive to growth, unless there is something I don't know about Vimeo (is it the same as YouTube where you have to watch a bunch of ads before you view a video)?

Still, my point remains: why do companies like Nokia or Microsoft post their official videos only on YouTube? They could easily post them on their own sites or another service (not Vimeo, apparently, but somewhere else, for sure).