help me understand this one.. the site is
almost totally Flash (and nice!), but the
video is Real and MS? I'm just wondering because I don't deal with video much so I'm wondering if others know what's up. It must be something in a system for collecting $ for viewing the videos? Or is the On2 codec behind Real and MS? They obviously have some Fine Flash developers who know their stuff, so there's a business decision going on here... or maybe they did some research and found something out?
SPEED used to have a lot of Flash video on there too.. but now has MS video.. which makes me think there's more to this than just a need to fit within a subscription collection system.
oh, btw.. after slowmowing that first turn from Jerez it looks like Rossi did a damn fine tuck and roll.. and Hayden better pour on the steam if he wants to be on the box again this season. But check out
the fastest time..
30 Mar 2006 at 02:25 am | #
I've seen this on MTV Overdrive also. Windows media married with flash, extra requirements for FF and i'm sure the same thing goes for the mac, your also cutting out older macs. I think the main thing, at least with MTV is DRM. Then you have Windows Media Server = free, FMS2 = pay and limitations on bandwidth and user licenses. Unfortunate really. Maybe Red5 will hopefully, somehow, help change all of this.
30 Mar 2006 at 06:31 am | #
My guess would be a combination of DRM, and the cost for encoding all the videos. In my limited experiences working with videos and flash, a lot of corporations already have "legacy" videos encoded in Real or WMV, and especially when dealing with subscription, I believe real and microsoft still have the hands up dealing with DRM versus Flash.
30 Mar 2006 at 10:42 am | #
Price, Adobe seems rather greedy with their pricing for FMS2 compared to alternatives.
I wonder if many of the folks that work for the big content providers are like myself. If I can't afford to use the technology in my side-work, I'm not going to recommend my company use it. Heck, if I'm priced out of it, I don't even waste my time playing with free developer versions.
What I don't get is why more content providers aren't using Quicktime. I consistently create MUCH better quality and signficantly smaller quicktime movies than what I can achieve with any flv.
30 Mar 2006 at 02:33 pm | #
With the type of clients I have worked with, it has to do with adoption of the technology in their content management tools and server environments.
Our clients already support streaming windows, real or quick time media, but not Flash video (although adoption rate is approving) and if the client only has a couple pages / micro sites out of 10,000 pages it is hard to justify the associated coast.
30 Mar 2006 at 08:29 pm | #
Flash video is often not an option when content already exists in wmv format, or when the videos are also required to be used in other means.
http://www.v8supercars.bigpond.com.au is another example you might be interested in. This combines live timing and telemetry (in flash) alongside streamed video (wmv) during races.
Check the demo here: http://www.v8supercar.bigpond.com/what_you_get/what_you_get.html
31 Mar 2006 at 11:22 am | #
ok, I just wanted to point out again that I'm seeing sites that used to be plastered with Flash video (new vids each day/week) that now don't have any. Might be bandwidth.. might be that their video person quit.. might be that they got too many complaints.. ??
Also, I've seen quite a few sites (yahoo being the biggest I think) that use a Flash shell to project WMV vids just like that cool app that Dom pointed out.. I would love to hear a conference presentation from somebody laying out the deciding factors that led to that solution. Do they think it's the best technical solution? i.e. is the WMV video better and compressed more? Is the process of compressing WMV so much faster that production costs are much lower? Does Flash+WMV use less memory and processor and so less chance of crashing old systems? How secure is the DRM solution, and how insecure is Flash video? Is it a huge hassle to compress vids for both WMV and Flash (I see lots of places that have both WMV and quicktime)? etc.. etc.. because maybe the best solution is to use a Flash UI shell and a WMV video?
FlashForward is still looking for speakers..
http://flashforwardconference.com/speaker_proposal
11 Dec 2006 at 09:28 am | #
I am not surprised that WMV and Flash are being used.
I have been looking into this technology for a project. FMS2 looked like the solution. However, the price is just wrong. MacromediaAdobe should not be holding Flash back here. Its not a difficult implementation overall, as the RED-5 and the speed it has come up would indicate.
Still, streaming content is not protecting content. Tools can be made to easily scrape it.
I read on google answers that Adobe is said to not see DRM for Flash Video as a high priority. Are they insane? Its because of Flash video that we have seen the biggest $$ purchase of a company loosing money faster then any dot.com blowout.
At stake here is the future of the way we view video content. Whoever can get this right and be the first to monetize it. well. Google just blow billions of dollars just to take what could be percived as the lead position here..
I find it perplexing, the amount of time and effort that goes into these technologies. DRM is simply a wall. This wall can be high or small. But really, it just has be be high enough to stop most of the commoners out there from being able to use the content out of designed distribution. If you REALLY want to copy it, where are always a way.
You simply have to make it as inconvenient as possible.
Even if using a simply form of encryption, with a limited DRM functionality is all that is needed to really start the monetization of content. Sure the wall is only high enough to stop most people.
But hell, stopping 99% compared to 99.9% for say, Microsoft type DRM. There is always going to be a fraction of a percent. As such, it only has to be decoded into an unDRM format once, and released and its all academic, very expensive and unsatisfactory to the consumer.
I must admit I have not Yet played with RED-5, but I hold my hand up, and wish it luck, as it is this type of open source technology that will bring entertainment back to our screen. Hollywood only takes safe formula film risks these days. And the people that have the REAL ideas dream about having the money to make them. Any technology that reduces the costs for the dreamer to get a return on his creation is OK by me.
James
jamieg a t crafted com au