How to describe YouTube in a short, succinct paragraph while truly getting across to the readers how successful a site it has become?

It is a global web-based phenomenon of truly epic proportions, and has proven itself, over the course of its existence, both as an independent service and one held under the dominion of Mountain View, to be a very effective outlet for everyone from amateur paparazzi to diarists to people-strangely-obsessed-with-unboxing-electronic-goods.

These people all use the service to get their clips out to the masses, from whence millions on a daily basis look in to the web video hub for news, entertainment, and plenty other miscellaneous items anyone might wish to see at a given moment. Yes, in short, it’s a great, great thing.

But…

Yet, as beneficial as the invention is for many, many Net-connected folk around the globe, it’s got its sore points. There’s the ongoing battle surrounding copyright and the dispute had between YouTube and content owners in Big Media Land. 

There’s the matter of privacy and the numerous claims of defamation made against users and the host site itself. There’s even a good bit of vocal opposition to the service’s ongoing roll-out of in-video advertisements, however limited it might be at the moment.

And then there’s the issue of video quality. Or lack thereof. For years, both distributors and viewers of video on YouTube have more or less accepted the sub-par quality that came of its conversion engine.

Whether video would be high or low quality going into the upload process, it was pretty much guaranteed to tend toward the not-so-good by the time it reached the end of the line and was made available on its very own web page. Which wasn’t so bad. 

HD Needed

Most things didn’t need to carry with them superb definition. As long as one could see the cat chase the bear, and distinguish the two curious creatures relatively easily, the final product was tolerable. But no longer is tolerable “good enough.”

Now many have seen that the grass is most certainly greener on the other side – thanks to businesses like Veoh and Vimeo, who specialize in providing better-than-average viewing experiences – and now they’re looking to get more out of Chad and Steve in the way of picture quality.

They’ve seen that higher definition can be done, and they’re demanding that YouTube makes the changes necessary to see that they get what they want. As they should. If there’s something better to be had, one would be foolish to request anything less. Agreed? Agreed.

Well, you can rest assured. YouTube has heard the public’s cries for better quality stuff, and if all goes as planned, they’re going to deliver on that demand. Don’t believe me? Ask Steve Chen, co-founder of the Web video giant.

Steve Chen Speaks

Speaking yesterday at NewTeeVee Live, a conference organized by GigaOmniMedia, a series of popular online publications commandeered by Om Malik, a well-known and well-regarded pundit of the world of tech, Mr Chen described his company’s plans to deliver “high-quality YouTube video streams…soon.”

According to a brief story on the matter in CNET’s Tech News Blog, Chen said the site’s primary purpose was the make available its “vast library of content available to everyone” as quickly as possible, which thus far “requires a fairly low-bitrate stream” to provide reliably. 

But company is nonetheless working to incorporate a smarter video player; one which “detects the speed of the viewer’s Net connection” and supplies a higher-quality alternative if available. (Which one most likely is. Chen says every piece of content is saved on the company’s services in its original, unconverted, uncompressed form.)

Low Bandwidth Allotment

It’s true that, until very recently, the average bandwidth allotment for the majority of YouTube users connected via broadband has been relatively low. 

But increases made in transfer speeds throughout the US and pockets elsewhere in the world (Asia is of course well ahead of the global median) make it fitting for video outlets – particularly one as popular as YouTube - to make efforts to deliver better viewing experiences. 

Web technologies are, after all, becoming ever more efficient, and it’s now entirely possible for even the largest and most traffic-heavy of new-media websites to cater upgraded services quite effectively.

Alright, you’re saying, enough with the blabber. What you really want to know now is just how long will one have to wait for high-quality YouTube video to surface. 

On Way By Feb 2008?

Well, if Steve Chen’s projections are accurate, we’ll start to see the good stuff (as opposed to the bad stuff) in roughly three months’ time.

Think you can wait that long? I think you can hold out.

Interested in YouTube’s plans for the delivery higher-quality clips, courtesy of a new video player? Fine with what you’re given now? Couldn’t care less? Let us know in the comments below!

Paul Glazowski is a contributing author discussing the social networking world, his work can be found on Profy.com

Have Something To Say?