Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Stream Is a New Video Service For Businesses (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on from the another-video-service dept.

An anonymous reader shares a TechCrunch report: Microsoft today launched Stream, a new business video service that aims to give businesses that want to share video internally the same kind of tools and flexibility that YouTube offers to consumers -- but with the added benefits of the security tools enterprises expect from their document management services. The service is now available as a free preview. As James Phillips, Microsoft's corporate VP of its Business Intelligence Products Group, told me, all it takes to get started with Stream is an email address. The user experience in Stream does take its cues from consumer services like Vimeo and YouTube, and includes a number of social features, including likes and comments, as well as recommendations. "We've all been trained as consumers to understand what beautiful and fully featured software looks like," Phillips told me. "And we are now delivering on those experiences in business software." Some of the basic use cases for using video in a company include training and employee communications.

34 comments

  1. PLEASE STOP POWER STREAMING ON ME HITLER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


     

  2. Kaltura? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is Microsoft 'embracing' Open Source by creating competition. Kaltura has been around for the greater part of 6 years and allows you to create a self-hosted or cloud-based youtube-style video content library. It also can plugin to many different tools such as Moodle, Red5 and more.

    -dk

  3. Windows Media Player by blueshift_1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    What? A list of 300 poorly named .mpeg files in a single network directory isn't good enough for ya?!?

  4. "security tools enterprises expect" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why they run redmondian software.

  5. From Microsoft's "me too" division. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At Microsoft's "me too" division we endeavor to take any service currently provided, add about 80% bloat, and release a buggier version several years after the original service was available.

    1. Re:From Microsoft's "me too" division. . . by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they should have used unix as their base OS, but no, they had to buy DOS from a home programmer...

  6. Are you sure? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Any service that depends on external servers isn't secure.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Any service that depends on external servers isn't secure.

      Any computer that isn't surrounded by a vibration isolated faraday cage and 100 tonnes of concrete isn't secure. So what? Do you think that the computers in your data centre are looked after better than Google looks after theirs? Any serious professional IT ... oh ..... Microsoft. The company responsible for the Sidkick debacle. Carry on there.

    2. Re:Are you sure? by lucm · · Score: 1

      It was Hitachi who corrupted the data during a SAN upgrade at Microsoft (which had acquired Sidekick only a year before).

      This is a frequent problem with storage vendors. We had a similar thing happen at work with a big IBM SAN (7-digit price tag); the IBM guy wiped the data by mistake and said "sorry about that". And anyone who has managed a low-end MSI whitelabel (like the DS-4000) has probably gone through something similar or worse, like losing the arrays configs. Same for Clariion. Or Netapp.

      The problem with the Sidekick mess was not having backups. That was reckless even for Microsoft; although it's always tempting to see SAN replication as a form of backup, it's not the same thing.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had the same problem here convincing them that their SAN replication was NOT backup or DR regardless of what the BS the sales guys from IBM and Hitachi fed down their throats. Wasn't until one of the SAN guys corrupted a LUN which of course was replicated to the remote SAN that they finally started to listen.

    4. Re:Are you sure? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Any service that depends on Microsoft isn't secure.

      FTFY

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Are you sure? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Any service that depends on external servers isn't secure.

      Any computer that isn't surrounded by a vibration isolated faraday cage and 100 tonnes of concrete isn't secure..

      So are you saying that Microsoft servers are just as secure as ones in a Vibration isonlated Faraday cage and 99.99 tonnes of concrete?

      So f it isn't perfect don't do anything, eh?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Are you sure? by lucm · · Score: 1

      Classic. The only thing that trumps vendor bullshit is a major incident (or two), or if your company has money, a one-on-one call wih a Gartner or Forrester analyst.

      I think the fundamental issue is that people tend to take people out of the disaster equation. I had to prepare a PowerPoint that looks like this to get management to understand the issue:

      Replication -> Fire, earthquake, contained zombie invasion

      Backups -> Oops sorry about that

      You'd think they teach that in CS and IT-related MBA programs but apparently not.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    7. Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he is saying unless you have insane amounts of money and massive security teams then most likely MS, google, Amazon etc run far more secure servers than the average enterprise is ever capable of achieving.

    8. Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do/did in CS. MBA is all about the money. Not backups.

      That is what lawyer retainer fees are for when they get caught.

    9. Re:Are you sure? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      No he is saying unless you have insane amounts of money and massive security teams then most likely MS, google, Amazon etc run far more secure servers than the average enterprise is ever capable of achieving.

      Then perhaps he might not try to make perfect the enemy of good.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  7. Oh goodie! by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    That means all those shills that pretend to do product reviews on YouTube will vanish, 'cause they now have their own service, right?

    RIGHT?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Streaming Straight to You by sexconker · · Score: 1, Troll

    And the NSA.

    Stream is built on Skype's core. It's going to suck, and it's going to have built in back doors.

    1. Re:Streaming Straight to You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stream is built on Skype's core. It's going to suck, and it's going to have built in back doors.

      Not just that, but if you build a business around it, they'll probably do like they did with Skype and suddenly decide that your Linux users are optional for half a year before forcing everybody who's been using a full version to go back to an Alpha. This is not an organisation you want anywhere near your company's important communication channels.

    2. Re:Streaming Straight to You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they build a service based on skype's core instead of the azure core they used to stream the olympics?

  9. Looks like an advertisement to me. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    I put a Kodi system upstairs for our recording studio. They upload the commercials we made to it and play it to TV's within the building using SDI. Screw "YouTube" like - I put a "Tv Station" on an old Dell.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  10. Interesting name. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I can't help but think this was a blatant attempt by Microsoft to suddenly gain ownership of the generic and long-used term "streaming".

    Just wait for the rash of law suits from Microsoft against websites that have already been "streaming" audio/video for years.

    1. Re:Interesting name. by Jezral · · Score: 1

      MS marketing cannot come up with unique names to save their life, or they just prefer to take generic terms and slap Microsoft in front. Either case, it's truly getting annoying. MS Surface, MS Edge, MS Stream, Windows Phone, all horrendous names. And when they do come up with original ones, we get Zune.

      MS marketing hated the original Xbox name and tried to get it changed, but was shot down by popular vote. They've never been able to figure out what names would resonate with people.

    2. Re:Interesting name. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised they didn't just call it MS console :-)

  11. Will they try content id bs? try to flag desktop? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will they try content id bs? try to flag the desktop?

  12. Microsoft's stream by DaveMikulec · · Score: 2

    The Microsoft Stream is yellow and salty. I wouldn't drink from it if I were you.

    --
    "Shall we play a game?" -W.O.P.R.
  13. Share Video Internally by Khyber · · Score: 2

    You're already on the internal network. Make a shared videos folder and have people just access them from the network share via some e-mail link or internal site link what not, this is not difficult at all. You don't need Microsoft to make a service for you - well maybe you do if you can't think of something this utterly simple.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Share Video Internally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is the sort of unmanaged shit organisations are sick of. It scales poorly, difficult to manage and in the end costs them far more than some software that actually manages this. Your advise is the type of advise that has made this sort of service so desperately needed.

    2. Re:Share Video Internally by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "It scales poorly"

      If something THAT SIMPLE scales poorly, the issue lies with YOUR NETWORK STRUCTURE AND THE TECHNOLOGY BEHIND IT, not the video itself.

      What would your advice be, eh? All that fucking wasted money. Your advice is worth precisely nothing as it doesn't save anybody money, gains no efficiency, and now you have to learn how to use ANOTHER SYSTEM when you've got built-in ones that already do the task.

      Only a Microsoft Shill would shill so hard as to push another Microsoft product when Microsoft has had this problem solved since Windows 2000.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  14. Will Comcast Sue MS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Comcast announce Stream which streams live TV (Jul 12, 2015): http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/a-new-streaming-tv-service-from-comcast

  15. Monday morning quarterback by lucm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Microsoft already had a version of Unix at the time: Xenix, first designed for minis and licensed to OEMs (not customers). But it needed a lot of customization for every new architecture, and when they made the deal with IBM to license them an o/s they didn't have time to create a new Xenix flavor that ran well on x86. (A problem similar to the one Linus Torvalds solved more than a decade later).

    So they bought DOS and figured that they would make it closer to Xenix in a later version. But other events occured, and they finally abandoned Unix and sold Xenix to one of the greatest companies in the history of software: SCO.

    If you have any experience in IT you know that this kind of short term compromise to close a sale or meet a deadline is typical. In this case it just happens to be a famous one, and since Microsoft has been profitable every year since then (30+ years ago) I wouldn't qualify that as a mistake.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Monday morning quarterback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > when they made the deal with IBM to license them an o/s they didn't have time to create a new Xenix flavor that ran well on x86.

      Actually Xenix had been 'running well on 8086' for a couple of years when they made a deal with IBM. In fact that was the whole point of Xenix - to run on 8086 (later on 80286, 80386, ...). IBM did not want Xenix at all, it required a hard disk and IBM PC (5150) could not support one.

      IBM wanted BASIC and CP/M for their new 'PC' that was targeted at competing against the Apple II with Z80 Softcard and CP/M.

      MS Offered SCP's CP/M clone.

  16. Vimeo Plus competitor by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    The one technical difference between this and Vimeo Plus ($60/year) seems to be ADFS SSO support. Vimeo would do well to add that.

    Actually... just found this: https://www.onelogin.com/conne...

  17. Same Microsoft ad as the other day, exact same. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same answer applies. Skype leaks your kids porno videos.. it's Microsoft

    Microsoft is US government spyware, thats not good

    Microsoft stream is just both. Government kids jacking off. gtfo of town