|
The Great Video Hosting Debate Continues
By Doug Caverly
Staff Writer
Article Date: 2009-04-15
Suppose for a moment that you needed to advertise something. You could stick a sign in a yard and reach out to people close by. Or you could turn to a radio station and find folks wherever they may be. Or you could embrace both options, and when it comes to hosting videos, this sort of all-inclusive route is the way to go.
If you need to host a video, the two most obvious choices are to either do it yourself or stick the clip on YouTube. The YouTube route is reminiscent of a radio ad insofar as you'll lose a little direct control, but you'll make the video easy for all sorts of individuals to come across.
At the same time, you'll also get an advantage of the sign-in-the-yard approach since using YouTube is free.
On the other hand, as Barry Schwartz recently wrote, "I also want my videos hosted internally so that I can publish an iTunes feed and gain subscribers not only to YouTube but also to my video feed, which can be subscribed to on your favorite RSS reader or via iTunes or other video/podcast readers." And this option to do whatever you want is undeniably nice.
So Schwartz advised, "If you had to make a decision on where to host your videos, I would tell you to host them both on YouTube and on an internal server (I use Amazon S3)." No compromises are needed.
About the Author:
Doug is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest eBusiness news.
|
|
