"Streaming Media" Magazine Bets On The Wrong Horse

Imagine my surprise. I thought "Streaming Media" magazine was all about video delivered from intelligent streaming video servers, not progressive download video "streaming" from a Web server.

Well, their June/July 2007 issue clarifies the position with their article entitled "Streaming Vs. Progressive Download" by Doug Mow, Tom Gilley and Dane Atkinson. I can't provide a link because the current magazine edition is not online yet.

Those of you familiar with the use of RTSP (Real Time Streaming Protocol) will find humor in a magazine called "Streaming Video" telling you that progressive download video is the cat's pajamas.

Their reasoning seems to be based upon the concept that user-created content, ala "YouTube" is Web 2.0 in action and is the coming standard.

Frankly, we hope not. YouTube videos are amateurish and very low quality. On the other hand, you don't need expensive video servers. Any old Web server will do.

Their distinction between streaming video and progressive download is on the money, but they err when they tell people that video seen with Windows Media Player is streaming video. If it comes to you from a Windows Media Server, it is true streaming video. If it's a file type on a Web server that your file associations say must be viewed with Windows Media Player, it's progressive download. The same is true with Real Player.

They compound the error when they tell you that all Quicktime videos and all Flash videos are progressive download videos. That's 100% incorrect. Some are, and some are not. It depends on what serves the video to you. Once again, if it's a Web server providing the video to you, you're looking at progressive download.

Under the category of scalability, they claim that streaming video has fixed bandwidth. Wrong. Intelligent video servers test the bandwidth available to the viewer several times per second, and adjust the stream rate to provide the best quality viewing. Progressive download video does none of that. It throws it over the fence and you see whatever your current bandwidth allows.

They claim that streaming videos pause to buffer and progressive download videos never do. The reverse is the truth. There is a very slight pause at the beginning of a streaming video presentation while the video server determines the optimal stream rate for you. After that, the streaming video never pauses to buffer. Progressive download video will pause to buffer if the incoming bandwidth drops low enough to allow the video buffer on your computer to empty.

This pausing to buffer is quite common with progressive download video because nothing is monitoring available bandwidth. The Web server tosses over the video, as Web servers are programmed to do, and then goes on to other tasks.

Streaming video has a limit to the number of simultaneous viewers, just like a Web server has a limit to the number of requests it can handle simultaneously. The solution, in both cases, is the same. Cluster servers. Basically, these are servers containing duplicate data that share the incoming and outgoing loads.

They also claim that progressive download video provides a better viewing experience. Realistically, I think "equivalent" is probably a better term, but only for short videos.

There is a video term known as "audio/video sync". This is the coordination between the audio track and the video track to insure they always synchronize. This can't happen with progressive download video because it's tossed out by a non-persistent Web server and never monitored again. The "mouth moves, but there's no sound" is a characteristic of progressive download video, and one of the most famous problems with long videos.

Streaming video synchronizes the audio and video tracks all the way through the video, regardless of the length.

The authors mention Digital Rights Management (DRM) and correctly state that streaming video has it built in, while progressive download offers no security in that area.

The authors think it's better for the public to be able to take any video they can find, do whatever they like with it and send it to whoever they choose. That's a really powerful ability of progressive download video, because it offers no Digital Rights Management.

I shudder when I think of all my misguided AOL friends that send every joke they get to everyone in their address book, including me. Imagine the effect on getting your email when they start sending you lots of long videos that must physically download to you first. Having your email take 30 minutes or more to get it all in so you can read it may become a common event.

I can send someone "Gone With The Wind" in a streaming video email. It will take a few seconds for the email to arrive and a second or two after opening the email, the 3+ hour video will begin to play, right in the email, in most cases.

See an example for yourself HERE. (Unfortunately, GWTW is copyrighted, but this one will give you the idea).

When the authors discuss cost for streaming video, it's in terms of you owning all the hardware and bandwidth, not simply using it. Using that analogy, connecting to the Internet would be very expensive because you'd have to lease a high bandwidth line, purchase and install the Web server software/hardware, establish the DNS, etc., etc. Fortunately, you can simply connect to an ISP at a far lower cost because you're sharing the resources with a lot of other people.

Guess what? You can also do the same thing with streaming video. No hardware costs, no software costs and no technical knowledge required. A very low bandwidth fee per minute covers it all. For the real scoop, CLICK HERE.

The authors claim that, at the end of the day, the customer just wants his video out there. We think they're dead wrong.

At the end of the day, and every day thereafter, all customers want to know the same thing, "am I getting value for my money"?

What can progressive download offer you? The number of "hits" on the file (a.k.a. "impressions). We believe that "HITS" is an acronym standing for "How Idiots Track Success".

Well, OK, we can also tell you the IP address of anyone that watched it for at least 1 microsecond. Still no good. All AOL users, for example, will show as being in Virginia because that's where AOL is located. Is "somebody, somewhere watched my advertising video for some unknown period of time" good enough for you? OK, then progressive download video is for you.

Woo Hoo! Someone saw your video! Who? How much of it did they watch? Can you capture the email address of the viewer and store it in a warm leads database or spreadsheet?

If you're using progressive download video, the answers are "no idea", "no idea" and "no". Streaming video provides that very useful information to you, in our case, at no additional cost.

The bottom line is that if all you want to do is make videos with your Web cam that others can download, alter at will and send to anyone they like, use progressive download.

If you're advertising a product, trying to create a brand and want to know who sees your advertising and how to reach them directly, progressive download video is not for you.

Let me know what you think on the subject. Posting comments is simple.