Slashdot Mirror

Streaming video needs an Apache

Per Slashdot tradition, I will pick on your analogy a bit, because I can't argue with most of the rest you wrote. We already already have the Apache for video... and it is: Apache. And IIS. And nginx, lighttpd, etc.

Move Networks and Microsoft have shown that the best way to do streaming in today's internet is via HTTP, while chunking the video into variable bit-rate segments. This allows easy caching of video fragments via CDNs or even Squid-style caching proxies at ISPs, universities, etc. Yes, you can do live streaming this way, and the Move Networks/Limelight Oprah event streamed to something like 1M viewers simultaneously.

Of course Move Networks has this patented this up the wazzu, and I imagine Microsoft has some of their implementation patented as well. But the actual chunking of video files is pretty obvious, and there's lots of prior art, so I imagine their specific patents can be avoided by an open standard.

So we don't really need an Apache for video, the distribution problem isn't hard, and we already have Apache.

What we need is the content generation toolchain, as you describe later. So we really need the Eclipse/gcc/Spring analogues for video. A free-and-open codec, file formats, and widely distributed players. As you state, the hardest of all these is the codec. I took a fair bit of maths and even some CG and DSP classes back in the day, and I can barely understand how MPEG-2 works, let alone something like H.264.

Who says they are developing software now? ABC uses Move Media player. They didn't develop their own, they contracted out. No real focus shifting for ABC, they're still focused on content.

The difference open standards would make would be felt by companies like Move Networks who really are and should be focused on how the content is delivered. To ABC its not that relevant as long as they get some level of assurance from Move that their content is somewhat secure. Judging from the content you see on torrents it seems to be just that. The content is ripped from cable TV. Path of least resistance it seems.

Issues of accessibility aside, there is a clear technical reason for this choice: the video quality is astounding for a streaming medium.

The DNC website streamed the 2008 convention with Sliverlight technology from Move Networks in high definition, and, from what I can tell, that's the same technology they will be using for the Inauguration.

This is near-HD quality streaming, with adaptive correction (i.e. no pauses to "buffer"). Startup is nearly instantaneous.

Given that 99% of users are using Windows or Intel Macs, and that they need to stream *live*, I'm not sure what open technology you would have them use that has been proven in practice and has comparable quality. You would be basically insisting that the government fall back to the technological equivalent of AM Radio because they haven't published the specifications of how to build your own FM Radio, even though they're giving out new radios at no charge....

So, I don't view this as a mistake, or a screw-up. I view it as a challenge to FLOSS supporters to build a better (or at least, *competitive*) video streaming solution. The freedom to use crap is not freedom.

H.264 requires twice as much CPU power to decode, and Flash doesn't support adaptive streaming like Silverlight does.

Not that it matters in this case, because the video is being fed via Move Network's video player, while Silverlight is handling the UI and overlays (so it's not like nbcolympics.com where Silverlight handled both the video and the UI of the video player).

Interestingly, I see that Move Networks today announced that Microsoft is now a "strategic investor".

H.264 requires twice as much CPU power to decode, and Flash doesn't support adaptive streaming like Silverlight does.

Not that it matters in this case, because the video is being fed via Move Network's video player, while Silverlight is handling the UI and overlays (so it's not like nbcolympics.com where Silverlight handled both the video and the UI of the video player).

Interestingly, I see that Move Networks today announced that Microsoft is now a "strategic investor".

Right you are. Should have looked at the site before I pontificated.

They also use the Move Player, against which I have a personal grudge. Ever since abc.com switched to it, I can no longer watch shows full screen. Why buggy and irritating media players with no obvious added value continue to proliferate is the great mystery of our time.

http://www.movenetworks.com/news-releases/move-networks-to-enter-into-strategic-relationship-with-microsoft as movenetworks is behind the distribution of the videos, the reasons for silverlight are more than abvious...

You're new here aren't you?

There's a huge TCO advantage in the Move Networks delivery technology, as it can take advantage of ISP web caches so that multiple viewers on the same network can watch the same file chunk, cutting ISP's in-stream bandwidth requirements hugely, as well as outgoing bandwidth needed. For content like this which has a huge simultanous audience, that means scaling up is much, much cheaper.

http://www.movenetworks.com/why-move/frequently-asked-questions

Move Networks also offers pretty seamless rate adaption, so you don't get buffering messages as available bandwidth changes.

I'm not aware of anything else like this availble in FOSS or generic MPEG-4. Most MPEG-4 software players and live encoders don't even support RTSP stream switching.