you tube video

[gowda24]

Can we play videos on youtube player without hosting on youtube.

Like hosting videos on our local server and using youtube api i.e. you tube player to play videos

Ex. <iframe width=”420″ height=”345″
src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/XGSy3_Czz8k”&gt;
</iframe>

Can we provide the local file path to the src tag instead of the path of the video hosted on youtube.

[Alen]

No.

Try: http://www.sublimevideo.net/

[__]

Not sure if you could do that (or what advantage it could possibly have—why not host on youtube? they’re good at it).

Depending on your objective, you might look at solutions like video4all or videojs.

[jurotek]

Good info about html5 video and audio.

[gowda24]

Hi Guys thanks for the suggestions, Hosting videos on you tube is like they are more vulnerable to losing privacy.

[nixnerd]

Hosting videos on you tube is like they are more vulnerable to losing privacy.

Huh? By virtue of them being on the internet at all… you’ve already lost your privacy. I’m not sure I understand that statement.

I gotta agree with the above posts. YouTube is VERY good at hosting and serving up videos really fast and beautifully. That’s because it’s owned by Google. No need to reinvent the wheel in 99% of cases.

There is one fringe case I can think of. About 5 years ago I ran a site that featured a bunch of political/social commentary content. The videos that were edited and uploaded ABSOLUTELY fell within fair use. Be that as it may, YouTube doesn’t really care about your fair use rights… they care about huge corporations that could sue them for hosting copyrighted content. I can’t really blame them. It’s MUUUUUCH easier to piss off and inconvenience Joe Schmo user, than go to bat for him and potentially lose millions.

If you are posting content that anyone could object to our claim you stole, I would advise you host your own video. But… you do so at your own risk. Obviously.

[nixnerd]

You might want to check out Vimeo too. I always found their player to be much more aesthetically pleasing.

[shaneisme]

Strange, I’ve never had an issue with YouTube. They do have stricter licensing by region than Vimeo of course, but that shouldn’t affect content you created 100%.

When it comes to video, I don’t want control over the quality that the client is being served, that should depend on their connection. I’d rather have someone on a mobile device get a lower quality quickly than lose them altogether.

[nixnerd]

I’ve always REALLY liked Vimeo. Like… a lot.

I think it’s a bit of a misnomer to assume that YouTube will automatically serve up video faster than Vimeo. Might be true… might not. Depends on a lot of factors. Just FYI: You don’t host your own video with Vimeo. It’s on their servers. It’s more than just a player.

A lot of people think that Google is going to serve stuff up faster than anyone and in most cases, it’s probably true. But I saw a benchmark somewhere that showed CloudFlare was killing it. So, I have a few JS libraries that I link to from CloudFlare instead. Just one trivial example but I think it is pertinent.

That being said, there are a ton of situations where having more control over the video and having a kick ass player come in handy.

[Author]

Posts