Back in April when I wrote Rethinking the Web OS from a user's point of view, I used a lot of words in my attempt to get across a simple point. Luckily, Anil Dash came along recently and was able to summarize what I wanted to say in a single example.
Note to Microsoft: Community trumps codecs. Users see "I can't upload my Movie Maker clips to YouTube" as your bug, not theirs, and they don't want to hear about "transcoding licensing fees" just to watch funny videos.
[emphasis mine]
Well said, Anil. That succinctly illustrates what's going on.
Posted by jzawodn at August 08, 2006 09:38 PM
As I wrote on the YDN Blog, I'll be there on Thursday:
http://developer.yahoo.net/blog/archives/2006/08/site_explorer_a.html
I'll also be there later today for a panel.
Hmm - doesn't Movie Maker allow output in AVI? And YouTube allow AVI uploading?
Unfortunately, I suspect the average user is going to blame YouTube, not Microsoft.
Andrew wrote: "doesn't Movie Maker allow output in AVI? And YouTube allow AVI uploading?"
Although I know nothing about the specifics of MovieMaker's export functions, I do know that "output in AVI" is vague enough to be meaningless. AVI is a container format, not a video format. What matters is the specific video and audio codecs of the data tracks within the AVI file. Yes, YouTube allows "AVI uploading", but that just means they can parse the AVI container to see what's inside. If YouTube's software can't decode the actual video and audio codecs, they can't convert and subsequently publish the video.