Youtube Live : Will they take over Live streaming?

[cseeman]

YouTube's business model is to monetize with their own advertising FWIW of course.
They're also geared towards "events" rather than 24/7.
Alas like most CDNs each has their own business model.
The advantage of YouTube is that it costs nothing.
All factors that need to be weighed.

I wouldn't call that "not ready" so much as YouTube is quite ready to implement their own business model which is not suited to those looking for monitization control.

I can't speak to the bit rate issue because because I'm not absolutely sure what you send is what the viewer receives. Since they are doing re-encodes I'm not sure that they're not doing a re-encode of the "master" data rate one is sending.

[TomSinclair]

I tried it yesterday for my weekly show (That VidBlaster Guy!) with mixed results.

The set up process was relatively clear using FMLE separately. I had to make some adjustments in FMLE that I don't normally do (baseline to main, 3.1 to 4.1, keyframes to 1 sec). I streamed 864x480 @ 1000kbps and that part worked fine.

I embeded the YT player on a webpage and it could be viewed at 864x480 as the default, but the YT page used 640x360 as the default.

YT provided three options for live viewing: 480p, 360p, and 240p. A fourth option is now available on my YT page: 144p.

Some European viewers were disappointed as the show was not available to them. Germany for sure, not sure which others.

The biggest flaw for me was the delay from live. Some viewers reported a 20 second delay from live, some over a minute. That made chat interaction very frustrating.

All in all, it was a great experience, but I will probably not use it again, at least not for a talk show format.

[joedemax]

[QUOTE=TomSinclair;5477]I streamed 864x480 @ 1000kbps and that part worked fine.

I embeded the YT player on a webpage and it could be viewed at 864x480 as the default, but the YT page used 640x360 as the default. /QUOTE]

FWIW, I've like to point out the 864x480 is not a resolution that YouTube (or really anywhere else) actually uses. 864x480 is actually 10 pixels too wide to be 16:9. I would set your video software and FMLE to be 854x480.

[Kidder]

I embeded the YT player on a webpage and it could be viewed at 864x480 as the default, but the YT page used 640x360 as the default.

Tom, where does one find this embed code for the livestream, or is it an aftermarket player?

[andrewzarian]

Its amazing that this thread was made over two years ago and youtube has not taken over the entire live streaming market. It says something for sure.

[cseeman]

Setting up an Event is awkward compared to just having a channel you can go live to anytime.
While an Event can be embedded, it's on an event by event basis. it's much easier to embed a channel as can be done with other services.
Their text posting doesn't have the same feel as having a live text chat.

[mcphillips]

Their text posting doesn't have the same feel as having a live text chat.

Ain't that the truth?

[domineaux]

Google can dominate somethings, but beware.

Google is now trying to migrate from multiple user accounts and allow one account only. This makes harvesting information easier for them, and they can eliminate who they want with one switch. This can be very bad, because if they don't like what you produce the Google police will shut down everything. It is extremely difficult to get reinstated, if at all. Google, I suspect will become the thought and controlled speech police before it is done.

The government is currently in a war over freedom of speech. Look at the bit about "free speech zones", where the government created fenced compounds where people were allowed free speech at the Bundy ranch. The people ignored these clearly defined areas. Google and social media are all pandering to government, in turn they get contracts and tax incentives. You really can't fight the system, because government money is infinite. It is created from thin air.

The live stream providers need to think hard about their fees and services. Google is competition, but there are things live stream providers can do alot better...just because they are smaller and have more flexibility. If these providers sit on their hands to wait and see what's going down, they won't react soon enough to keep anything close to market share. When Google makes their move after they work through all their maze of internal considerations they will pop onto the markets with advertising, cheap and probably free service. It is hard to beat competition from well financed companies when they really want the business.

Google is a behemoth, moves slow and is very autocratic about everything. So, there is that.

If Ustream, livestream and other video providers wait to see what Google is going to do...they will be so gone so fast you won't believe it. These companies that will be affected know who they are.

New $6,000 hardware items like livestream is selling will do more to tank them than they can imagine. The bit about riding the fence between markets will not serve them well. These providers need to focus and provide competitive services where they want to establish their business. BUSINESS IS NOT A STATIC ENVIRONMENT, businesses must be dynamic and innovative to succeed. WHat worked yesterday will not work tomorrow.

Look at the apps for video and streaming for iphones. Is the camcorder dead, is the $500 live stream camera dead? Product lifecyles when ignored, well we know the ends.

I forgot to mention... The live stream providers need to make serious efforts to have access to viewers by roku, amazon fire, and other wifi/ethernet console devices. The ability to access their broadcasters should be as seamless as possible.