Speaking at the NewTeeVee conference yesterday, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen confirmed that YouTube was testing HD video but qualified the statement by stating that YouTube is primarily focused on providing content to everyone, which doesn’t necessarily facilitate a HD product.
Chen spoke on the difficulties on providing a watchable HD product to many, including buffering times that don’t drive viewers away. Chen told CNet that the first HDHigh Quality content on YouTube should be available within 3 months.
HD is obviously the next step forward in video, and a spectator who called on HD on YouTube was greeted with cheers from the audience. YouTube is stuck in a difficult position; their wild popularity is in part facilitated by bringing free universal upload and viewing access to everyone, where as accessibility with HD is a big issue. Whilst internet access speeds have finally caught up with the provision of video online in the last few years, the bandwidth required for HD is at a level which automatically limits audience based on internet access speed. High speed broadband continues to have a strong uptake, but outside of major metropolitan centers it remains patchy as access is often not readily available. It will be interesting to see how YouTube balances its stated desire to provide access to everyone vs the growing demand for HD, particularly at a time where competitors are, or are in the process of offering HD services.
Another important item that Steve mentioned was that YouTube will allow the customization of their Video Player.
Vimeo has had HD for awhile: http://www.vimeo.com/hd
That means users will have to record their stuff in HD also before uploading. Bling Bling time for Canon and Sony.
I know one guys who will be happy to hear this move. Mark Cuban.
Indian Videos
I didn’t add this, but if you follow the two links basically YouTube keeps every video in its original format on its servers…so if it was HD on upload they’ve got access to it
I don’t quite focus on the difference?
How about they just come out with a “D” version first? Just a slight upgrade to the quality that some other sites have would be fine. You know, so I don’t have to sit there and be like, “Is that really Jon Stewart, or a really well made hand puppet?”
Yes, now all the video startups that cling to HD as there big YouTube differentiator are now SOL.
Why do I need an HD version of some idiot hitting himself in the nuts with a jack hammer ?
Youtube is successfull because the solutions meets the requirements … lets not break it by adding something the majority dont necessarily need !
Nige
HD or HQ (high quality)…call me a linguists freak, but there is a difference…did they specifically mention HD somewhere?
@monkeyleader HD on YouTube, or Vimeo or where ever is awesome…especially now with TakeTV handy
This would be great. Some of the video on there could definitely use an HD boost.
Brian Wilson, Zolve.com
Any truth to the rumor about Youtube buying Ustream??
Well they have increased the file size, so the next step would be HD.
About time, I wonder how they are going to provide all the bandwith? Time to put more money into CSCO? I love watching NBA plays of the day, but with the current quality i can barely see the ball on the court. HD is the way.
Hi Duncan — I interviewed Steve on stage at the conference yesterday, and I would say your post doesn’t really reflect his comments (as well as what he told Rafe, based on Rafe’s post). He did announce YouTube will test sending higher *quality* video to viewers whose bandwidth can support it, but he definitely shied away from any mention of HD. What I got out of his comments was that YouTube’s first priority is making sure everyone, everywhere, on any device, could view every video on the site. Steve actually said himself, as the commenters above are saying, that HD really doesn’t make sense for the short, silly clips that are YouTube’s bread and butter.
Liz Gannes, NewTeeVee
re: Amerikhan
They won’t need more / new routers or switches, they’ll need to upgrade their connection to the internet. OC48(s) anyone?
Maybe this HQ thing will be driven by h.264 versions of the videos, once the flash player that support h264 is out of beta?
I beg TechCrunch to pay attention to the detail, comments here clearly suggest you’ve got the story wrong, so you need more Tech and less Crunch if you ask me!
High speed internet connection is an issue stateside. But other countries have way better connection speed and will rejoice!
Great News, im sick of watching pixelated full screen videos
about time, i’ve seen other sites that already had this a while ago.
Great news. Now, we call all watch high quality pirated videos/movies for free. The only complaint I had with YouTube so far was that the videos were of low quality. I’ll toss my TiVo out. Long live YouTube.
If Youtube buys Ustream, gets HD, they then have live AND recorded– Total package.
Why will we need Fox, CBS, Abc?
Chen never said HD, and I never said HD in my post. He said *higher quality*. Big difference.
See also this Twitter I posted live from the event:
Steve: Our goal is to make the content available to EVERYBODY. Secondary is higher qual for some people. (http://twitter.com/WWNTV/statuses/415317942)
It doesn’t need to be HD, it just needs to be a codec other than poxy Flash. Look at the quality of some of the videos on apple’s version of youTube (on a iphone or Apple TV) where the videos are encoded to h.264. The bitrate is the same or lower and the quality is much better. True HD on the web is a few years away but there are many steps in between.