As of last night, Flickr/Yahoo has finally bit the bullet and added video support to their service. A cynical response might be that they clearly would like to compete with YouTube. But when reading through the FAQ and examining the system's limitations, it seems that they really are sincere in supporting "long photo" as opposed to real videos. The kind that come from your cameras, not camcorders.
First, there's a 90-second time limit on all uploads. Needless to say, that's extremely low. Flickr acknowledges that it "might seem arbitrary." And it is. Whether or not it supports tighter editing or cleaner presentation, why 90? Why not 89? 60? The time limit might not be a bad thing, but it's certainly arbitrary.
And also to note: not everyone can upload videos. Pro users have the option, but standard users will need to spend some dough for the privilege.
A quick test finds that the service is no more difficult than uploading photos, and it's pretty quick to boot. Also, advanced embedding functions allow for users to choose their preferred width or height for the video and the service will calculate the dimensions and update the code accordingly. That sounds like a small touch. It is, but it's also a pretty good one lacking in just about all video on the web. [flickr video]