Former BBC presenter Roy Sheppard runs a training company for business techniques. Like most firms, his boasts a Web site, but unlike many, he provides video clips on his site and believes this helps to sell the firm's services. 'It's brought me shedloads of business,' he says. 'Typically I talk to people as they are selecting clips from my site. They get to see my speeches and presentations, and then make a decision on what they want. I can't believe more companies don't use streaming video.'
Sheppard is taking advantage of the fact that not only is streaming video cheap, but it is also of high enough quality to make it a worthwhile business tool.
Streaming allows live or pre-recorded video, audio or PowerPoint presentations to be delivered to users across the Internet. Typically the video material is encoded and then uploaded onto Web streaming servers, to ensure there is no strain on the Web site. This can be done by third parties, without the viewers knowing the material is coming from a third party. Streaming systems are able to provide detailed reports on usage and viewer trends, as well as password protection where needed.
Streaming costs
Most video material presented in this way is under three minutes in length. If it needs to be longer it is usually separated into instalments or 'chapters'. The vast majority of users have Microsoft's Media Player, Real Networks' RealPlayer, or Apple's Quicktime as viewers. Links through a redirect link to the server or the media player can be embedded on firms' Web pages using ActiveX Controls.
However, the video streaming industry has been slow to attract corporate users. Experts say bandwidth limitations, inertia and a lack of awareness are responsible for this slow growth. One difficulty is that packet loss, latency and network congestion can cause interruptions and low-quality images and sound. The quality of streamed video cannot match TV broadcasts at the moment.
Product and service design consultancy Nielsen Norman Group has carried out research into the use of video streaming. It concludes, 'The major cons outweigh the pros when attempting to use streaming video in the enterprise, except maybe in special cases, when the company's business is video.' It says the drawbacks of streaming video include:
- Compression typically streams video in a choppy way that can seriously detract from any message.
- Streamed video is often grainy and the viewing window is usually too small.
- It is expensive to produce, encode, store and play the video. Video streaming uses a lot of bandwidth and may clog up networks.
WebStreaming.com is one of many firms that offers streaming services. Managing director Barry Reading admits there have been problems and the market has been slow to take off. 'There were too many companies trying to set up in this business for a start, and then there is the problem of corporate culture, regarding viewing video as time-wasting,' he says. 'But my biggest problem is firms' connections not being adequate, or them thinking this is the case. They need to test their connections first.'
However, Reading says that high-profile streamed events, including live concerts and TV's Big Brother, have raised awareness and that a growing number of companies are considering the applications. It currently costs firms from about AU$800 to make a clip for streaming.
James Gardiner, deputy managing director of Internet investment firm Redbus, adds, 'The main problem is that you need the bandwidth. Last year, a lot of people started to offer services but now many have stopped Ã, Channel 4 is a case in point. The technology is there, but not many people can view the output because you need 400kbit/s. [The provision of high-bandwidth] ADSL is the solution but there isn't the political will to get the technology properly rolled out at the moment. It will be a pity if the UK loses out because of that.'
For streaming technology, the main choice is between Microsoft and RealNetworks. Microsoft seems to be winning corporate custom, and RealNetworks has more support from consumers. Data from research firm Market Decisions suggests that one in four US companies is using streaming media and that the total figure has doubled in the past 18 months. Sixty-six percent of 700 firms polled were using Windows Media technology.
A study by research firm Approach compared the cost of setting up services using Windows Media and the cost of using RealNetworks RealSystem, on an Intel platform. It found that Windows Media was 34 percent cheaper for 400 concurrent streams. For 2,000 concurrent users the savings were higher, with total costs of Ã,£10,500 with Windows 2000 Server compared with Ã,£30,000 for RealNetworks RealSystem.
Michael Aldridge, lead product manager at Microsoft's Windows Digital Media Division, denies that bandwidth availability is the main problem for firms. 'That's not the big issue. It's about how to create content, and we think we are tackling that with our new release, Microsoft Producer, and an Enterprise Deployment Kit that allows IT managers to lock down Media Player and gain more control. That will be even better with Windows XP,' he argues.
Better technology
Meanwhile, RealNetworks is developing a new business model by persuading consumers to pay for downloads. It has sold 300,000 versions of its Goldpass, which gives access to restricted material, operating rather like cable or satellite TV-on-demand. Microsoft offered its first experience of pay-per-view with an Elton John concert it advertised through the many MSN sites.
Analyst firm Jupiter Media Metrix reports that in the US in May, RealPlayer was used by 29.5 million home users compared with 21.1 million users of Media Player. RealPlayer has 11.2 million users in the workplace.
In June, RealNetworks launched its RealSystem Media Commerce Suite, which can be used by companies to offer commercial streaming services. It is already being used by MusicNet, an online subscription service owned by AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann, EMI and RealNetworks. MusicNet will launch its service later this year.
The availability of more bandwidth and better use of existing bandwidth will clearly encourage more use of video streaming. Much attention is now settling on the MPEG-4 standard released by the Moving Picture Expert Group. This is more advanced than standards that simply support transmission of information from one point to another, such as MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MP3 and QuickTime, in that it supports descriptions of objects for local generation.
This object-based approach allows interactivity, so viewers can pause, fast-forward or manipulate foreground and background video. In addition, it is possible to deliver richer or more restricted streams depending on the receiving device. It also introduces better compression technology, which can enable video and audio to be transmitted at data rates as low as 10kbit/s.
But some observers are not convinced that the difficulties of bandwidth have yet been overcome. A recent report by analyst company Yankee Group concludes that streaming media will not take off until broadband networks are more widely available. The report states, 'Rich media applications are problematic for users to download, due to large file sizes. Streaming media has become established as a viable delivery channel for these complex applications, saving the user from significant delays since the entire file does not need to be downloaded. But this will only really take off if quality high-speed networks are in place.'
On the not-too-distant horizon lies the promise of video streaming to mobile devices via third-generation (3G) wireless networks. Although the small screen size of mobile phones and handhelds may cause difficulties, there is little doubt that advertisers and content providers will be eager to take streaming beyond the desktop, to devices that both locate the user and have the facility for payment built in. The dream of a million small payments funding a TV news service may not be as far away as some think.
