Comments on: Why Vital Stream?

By: Kenny Bunch

Kenny Bunch — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:17:43 +0000

The good thing about Vital Stream is that they have geographically dispursed servers. This doesnt mean much in serving web pages, because people will wait for a webpage to stream in. There isn’t a noticable difference. The reason that Real and others do it, and no MM is doing it with outside vendors is the same reason… performance. If you are closer to a server your stream is going to be faster. This means a lot when you are expecting to see streamed video. Another good point, is like web serving, you don’t have to admin your own box. Someone else deals with the headaches and you get a # to call and harass them.

The thing about Vital stream, if I remember my reading correctly, it isn’t necessarily affordable unless you have bank.

By: JesterXL

JesterXL — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:37:12 +0000

I think the gent I was talking to out in Cali was asking more along the lines of, “Will this benefit my clients? Is this worth my time to investigate its abilities?”

There are certain things that Macromedia has done that aren’t. The Firefly components of the past, for example, were such a “thing” that I didn’t have to do much but read blogs vs. download myself and play. However, they didn’t do anything for me, because at the time I was using Remoting, thus, they meant little to my client(s) at the time.

That kind of thing, not does it have value. Yeah, the event itself has intrinsic value, but how does it apply to “me”.

By: Brent Bonet

Brent Bonet — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:23:16 +0000

Well you know, just like when Macromedia or anyone else does this, it means “alot.”

Brent

By: eyezberg

eyezberg — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:17:26 +0000

I checked out the VitalStream website,
sux a bit they don’t even tell you the price of the service,
3 packs offered but no price, will they decide, as they say in French “? la t?te du client”, that is, on a per-request basis how much they charge..? :-(