msn soapbox scores high, live id scores low

i just had a chance to play around with msn soapbox.  youtube copy? whatever, i've decided not to try to care much anymore about the "you're copying us" mentality after i saw iMediaCenter...er...i mean iTV.

i didn't want to use soapbox mainly because i'm not a fan of the usability experience of windows live id and/or passport.  why?  take a look...here's msn's home page:

notice the branding and look and feel...now let's click 'sign in':

does this look the same?  other than the msn butterfly logo, i'm clearly jumped to another place...and by the way, if i signup for a login at this point, i lost context of what i'm signing in for.  why can't ther just be a username/password box on the msn page?  want to use live id?  fine, just do it behind the scense...services anyone?

take soapbox:

i'm pretty sure they are using the same service, and look at the difference, no dual windows, and it looks/feels like i didn't leave soapbox -- and it is faster for some reason. 

so anyway...why do i like soapbox so far?  two reasons: experience and quality.  first the experience.  it's all web 2.x (trying to stay away from the term so no big book publishers get mad...hmmm...maybe i should trademark web 2.x) looking.  the menus on the side size up/down as you roll over them and it's all smooth like with no flash involved.  then when i start to upload a video i enter all the information and click upload...what do i see?  a note saying i can upload another while the other one is processing...so i do...check it out:

see the 'uploading' and 'queued' -- and i can still do everything else, browse/play videos, etc. -- very well done here.

then when my video is finished, i look at the quality...it is great (it started as an avi).  compared to the same file in youtube, it is much better quality from my perspective:

Video: Zoe and Brendon

i think the soapbox team did a good job and i hope they continue to enhance their offerings.