YouTube or iTunes U: Who Will Win the Battle for Educational Content?

2005: the Pioneer Days for Web Video

In 2005 providing video and audio content electronically to our students was a vexing problem at the college. Video files in particular presented several obstacles. They were insidiously large; took forever both to upload and download; were outrageously difficult to edit and even to add simple titles; and came in a variety of file formats, depending on the camera used. We talked about buying a streaming server which for our college and level of usage was much too expensive and required an additional expensive streaming license from Real Networks or another similar service. We posted them on our own web site but this meant that students were required to have a viewer for videos, an additional codec for the file type, and possibly upgraded hardware on their home computers. The video also needed to completely download before it could be played. Shortly after this I discovered that the ability to progressively download, a process that mimics the streaming of a regular server, had been added to Adobe’s Flash Player. (Progressive download was first added to Flash in 2003 but the implications were not readily apparent until a few years later.)


A colleague at the college did some research and discovered in 2007 that we also could likely use Apple’s iTunes U as a method for delivering our video content. We could upload videos at no cost onto Apple’s servers which would be downloaded on the student end using the iTunes Player either on the home computer or on a portable device like the—at the time—extraordinarily popular iPod. Unfortunately, the generous Apple contract required us to sign a limited liability clause which proved to be a several-year “sticking point.”


Comparisons but Not Apple and Apple

Fast forward to today. We and the rest of the educational world are using both methods for video.


Much of the video currently on the web including Google’s YouTube is sandwiched in a Flash wrapper to help it play with a minimum of problems. YouTube is very easy to use and has millions of users worldwide.


ITunes U now has near 1000 participating institutions, approximately 75,000 available files and millions of downloads.


Because the numbers fluctuate daily and iTunes U is primarily “marketed” to educational institutions it can be difficult to compare the two. YouTube can and is used by anyone with a video to upload. Although anyone can use iTunes for music and movies and have an iTunes account, iTunes U accounts are for institutions. It is not exactly an apples and apples comparison.


At the college we use both services. Faculty members find it easy to upload video content for their classes on their own with YouTube. Cellular phone cameras can quickly post video to YouTube. Our college adds recorded college events and activities to iTunes U.


However, YouTube content was limited to 10 minutes, regardless the file size. In 2010 this was increased to 15 minutes. ITunes limits its uploads to 1 GB file size, regardless how long it runs. We have found that lengthy videos can be compressed into small file sizes so that ITunes works best for our recorded campus events and whole class sessions, whereas YouTube is very convenient and easy to use for faculty within their classrooms.


EDU YouTube: A Strong New Contender

The fight has heated up with EDU YouTube which allows academic institutions to add longer running video content to a specific YouTube channel.


Although I have not seen it yet in the EDU YouTube courses, Google has a straightforward method for profiting from their videos. They have sidebar and pop up ads relative to the video content. I do not see the same clear methods for profiting from the iTunes U videos.


Currently, I would speculate that because of the ease of use, the absence of the necessity of a player especially with the rise of smartphones that can easily access the Internet, and the easy potential to profit, I believe that Google’s YouTube is on target to win the race.