breaker of stuff, destroyer of things

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

I’ve recently had a client that swears by windows media for steaming, and wanted to create a youtubish site using it. I helped him understand that flash was the best option, but then decided to look deeper into the debate to see what other people consider the pro’s and cons.

I now to most of us this is a no brainer, but hopefully it’ll help others, as this is the third client that has had windows recommended for either a video site or live streams.

myself I use swear by flash for live streams and video because:

1. I’ve always hated embedded windows media
2. it’s easy to handle
3. has a great reach
4. cross platform
5. allows easy integration of additional features / channels
6. can record streams on the fly, no client side software needed
7. the only software a client needs is a browser
8. me love flash long time
9. cross browser

Flash lets me know that the majority of the users will see what we want them to right off the bat, and those that can’t are just a quick download / browser refresh away.

there isn’t really anything recent written on this subject, but here’s a few old pieces / comments. please note some of the downsides / negitives mentioned in these articles are nolonger valid.

both of the following comments are in reference to this one:
http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=9363&c=5

It’s been about 14 years since streaming media technology was first used on the internet and, like it or not, after 14 years no single format is considered the standard for video delivery today. Competing formats from Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and Real all still vie for market share across various business verticals and playback devices. For many content creators, confusion still reigns over which format or formats content providers should encode and deliver their content in.

Though Real and Apple’s QuickTime both have their fans, Microsoft and Macromedia/Adobe have won the bulk of both the B2B and consumer-content format market share. Which means people ask me all the time, “Which format is better, Flash or Windows Media?” With that question in mind, lets look at some of the differences between Flash and Windows Media that will assist you in making that decision. Compression specialists and engineers all have their opinions when it comes to comparing things like codecs, server options, and the hard-core technical details of each platform, but for the purpose of this article I am going to cover basic facts, not opinions.

from :
http://www.lostremote.com/2006/07/19/the-eternal-struggle-flash-vs-windows-media/

Downsides to Flash: No live encoding, no DRM, no way to download the file to the desktop (without some sneaky programs you can find, anyway), doesn’t scale up too well.
Downsides to WM: you need the plugin, it’s mean to Apple, Linux and other vociferous computer users, DRM haterz hatez it, Mo’Money to Redmond. Looking forward, Rayburn is right to frame the streaming debate in terms of WindowsMedia vs Flash. RealVideo is losing steam (more desk popups, please!), QT, despite Mac users unlimited love, will not be the standard. It’s WM vs Flash, and my money’s on Flash as it has been for several years. (This is where I would put the self congratulatory link to an archived story from the early ’00s where I predicted Flash as the next coming of video. Curse you, old platform!)

from:
http://www.fusionauthority.com/Views/4634-Flash-vs-Windows-Media-Looking-at-the-Facts.htm

Some of you may have seen Dan Rayburn’s recent comparison of Flash and Windows Media Video formats (Flash vs. Windows Media: Choosing the Right Format) on StreamingMedia.com. The author did a pretty good job of sharing the strengths of both platforms. However, I have some problems with some of his facts.

The first problem I have is that Rayburn states that the adoption rate of Flash is somehow limited to the media and entertainment markets. He also states that Flash has really become hot in the last twelve months. If you see where Flash has made its biggest advances in the last year, then it is obvious where he takes his opinion from. He has seen that YouTube and Google Video both picked up Flash video as their preferred method of distribution, and he marks them as the only places using Flash video. To assume that these two giant media sites would choose an underdog medium when making their mark on the web is almost too silly to consider.

Almost in the same breath, Rayburn challenges that Flash video is dwarfed in the Enterprise market by WMF (Windows Media Format) Videos. I wonder if the author has ever seen Breeze or Captivate. These tools leverage the Flash video platform, allowing you to create customized training and presentation packages that can be deployed on a large scale. These tools are made for the Enterprise Market, and were created to fill a need that was not being met by the current tools (WMF, for example).

another helpful read. a linux user speaks on flash:
http://www.beatniksoftware.com/blog/?p=69