Uh, because it's superior. And:<p><a href="http://video.yahoo.com/" rel="nofollow">http://video.yahoo.com/</a>
<a href="http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us" rel="nofollow">http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us</a><p>etc<p>Search engines are simply always going to have video components. It's not going away ever.
It just target different audience. There is no need for it to be "like Youtube" or just disappear. It serves completely different purpose as documentaries (mentioned here), conference talks and etc.<p>Personally, I find it at least as useful as Youtube if not more.
Silly question, Wired. Would you ask why NBC keeps the Sci-Fi Channel alive under that name, or why Disney/ABC keeps ESPN alive under that name?<p>It's branding. "Google Video" has a certain meaning to viewers, and "YouTube" has a different meaning.<p>Even if they get the same backends, it would make sense to have more serious and educational videos on "Google Video", while music, entertainment and amateur videos live on "YouTube".
The article says youtube vids are capped at 10min, but<p><a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=EsEYpJMYIIw" rel="nofollow">http://youtube.com/watch?v=EsEYpJMYIIw</a><p>30min vid