Windows Media vs. Flash vs. Other

[basschick]

WMV is the winner as it's close to universal and a single link allows both streaming and downloads for each movie.

you can stream quicktime or flash now, but you have to pay for and set up stuff in your server, and last i checked, you pay different amounts depending on how many people you want to be able to stream the movies simultaneously.

you could offer a downloadable quicktime or mpg version of each movie for those few who can't watch WMVs. or you could simply make sure your trailers are WMVs - anyone who can't watch them probably won't join...

Wow...Lot's of help for me after I get off work. .

So from what I can see (correct me if I'm wrong here) WMV is pretty much a hands down must since I'm going to be streaming videos since Flash has inherent downfalls with bitrates and load times. As far as videos for downloading go, however, it's best to offer at least two formats (ie WMV and Quicktime) so that surfers can choose based on what they wish to do with it.

Maybe if Flash and Quicktime pick it up, they would be better candidates for streaming in the future, right?

Thanks,
Ben

[MyLifeUncut]

What about AVI files. Is it really worth putting up AVI files to let members download or would that just be a waste of time and space?

[ccjax]

you can stream quicktime or flash now, but you have to pay for and set up stuff in your server, and last i checked, you pay different amounts depending on how many people you want to be able to stream the movies simultaneously.

Or you could do it the easy way and offload delivery from your servers to a content delivery network, and just pay for the data transferred. Let them handle the Flash or QT licensing, equip, delivery included in the price per GB.

[Alex_Manifest_M]

Which we will be doing VERY soon

[basschick]

which takes control of your content away from you.

if you have a good price on bandwidth, WMV is popular and many sites do great. i'd go with MPG or Quicktime before AVI myself.

Or you could do it the easy way and offload delivery from your servers to a content delivery network, and just pay for the data transferred. Let them handle the Flash or QT licensing, equip, delivery included in the price per GB.

[MyLifeUncut]

Thank y'all for your help. I think I've figured out what I'll do for my formats.

As far as webcams go, though, what would be the best route to go there? I know WME is free, but I don't really like how much of a delay there is there. Are there any other options that aren't going to break the bank with less of a delay?

[flashfreak]

why not offering both wmv and flash streaming?
for those who say flash streaming is not a viable option: watch youtube's growth.

[DonMike]

Let's not forget that YouTube is made up of Flash videos and they seem to be doing pretty good.

[ccjax]

...which takes control of your content away from you.

That's a common misconception. With a CDN, the content can either be uploaded to an FTP site for propagation (just like your webserver) or it can be pulled from your server and delivered via the network.The original remains on your server and you retain complete control of your content.

And a note on YouTube - their videos are Flash progressive download, not Flash streaming. The video is cached on the user's system.

[basschick]

it's not a misconception at all. if their network goes down and your site is up, you have no videos. if they choose to change to a streaming solution that lowers the visible quality of the videos, your videos will look lower quality. if they choose to overcharge for delivery, you will pay more. if their servers get overloaded, your videos will be delivered more slowly.

That's a common misconception. With a CDN, the content can either be uploaded to an FTP site for propagation (just like your webserver) or it can be pulled from your server and delivered via the network.The original remains on your server and you retain complete control of your content.

And a note on YouTube - their videos are Flash progressive download, not Flash streaming. The video is cached on the user's system.

[ccjax]

it's not a misconception at all. if their network goes down and your site is up, you have no videos.

A good streaming network/CDN has extreme redundancy that prevents the entire network from becoming unavailable. There is more chance of a site going down than an entire delivery network going down.

if they choose to overcharge for delivery, you will pay more.

Same could happen with hosting companies without contracts and complete reporting to ensure pricing.

if their servers get overloaded, your videos will be delivered more slowly.

Again, same could happen with a hosting company, but with choosing wisely, most CDNs have fully distributed networks capable of handling thousands of simultaneous viewers.
All CDNs are not all alike, as all hosts are not all the same.

[chodadog]

Got to agree with ccjax on this one regarding CDNs. All the WildCash content is now delivered via a CDN with multiple servers across both Europe and the US. There is a huge level of redundancy because of this. Plus the benefits for members of your sites is great because they'll automatically be directed to the closest, fastest path to the content.