12 Comments

Summary:

YouTube yesterday touted the fact that it now processes about 24 hours worth of video content each minute — a milestone for the site. But while that number is impressive, there are a few others that say they can beat it. Without having the advantage of […]

Ustream Broadcaster

Ustream Broadcaster

YouTube yesterday touted the fact that it now processes about 24 hours worth of video content each minute — a milestone for the site. But while that number is impressive, there are a few others that say they can beat it. Without having the advantage of being owned and operated by Google, live streaming startups Ustream, Livestream and Justin.tv all claim to encode more video per minute than the largest video site on the web.

In an email to NewTeeVee, Livestream CEO Max Haot said that his company ingests an average of 1,600 concurrent streams each day. That 1,600 minutes of recorded or uploaded video translates into about 26.6 hours of video being processed every minute. Justin.tv also bests YouTube, with users reportedly uploading about 30 hours of live video content per minute, according to a recent article in High Scalability.

But Ustream might have them all beat. The site claims some 120 million live video streams uploaded each month. But according to a spokesperson, the site had an average of 3,200 concurrent streams at any given time, equal to about 53.5 hours of video that is encoded and processed every minute. Ustream attributes that increase to a high amount of live streaming that its users have been uploading through the iPhone ever since the company’s Broadcaster app was approved by Apple.

Despite the large amount of video that needs to be processed, the live streaming startups have, for the most part, decided to take such processing in-house rather than go with a third-party for encoding. Justin.tv and Livestream both started on Amazon Web Services, but transitioned to their own infrastructure to encode and stream user videos. In an email to NewTeeVee, Haot said that his company moved to its own infrastructure due to a lack of guaranteed bandwidth and the cost of cloud computing. In the High Scalability article, Justin.tv’s founder and VP of engineering also cited cost and lack of performance guarantees as reasons for moving out of the cloud.

Related content on GigaOM Pro:

Is Facebook Video Chat the Future of Social Media? (subscription required)

  1. Is anyone making money?

  2. SearchCap: The Day In Search, March 18, 2010 Thursday, March 18, 2010

    [...] Live Streaming Sites Beat YouTube in Video Hours Uploaded, newteevee.com [...]

  3. Oh yea.. there ya go.. spoiling the party!

  4. Live Streaming Sites Beat YouTube in Video Hours Uploaded (Ryan Lawler/NewTeeVee) | TechCombo Thursday, March 18, 2010

    [...] Lawler / NewTeeVee:Live Streaming Sites Beat YouTube in Video Hours Uploaded  —  YouTube yesterday touted the fact that it now processes about 24 hours worth of [...]

  5. Direct2Dell – Direct2Dell – DELL COMMUNITY Wednesday, March 24, 2010

    [...] 24 hours worth of video per minute and video streaming sites like Ustream, Livestream and Justin.tv say they exceed that impressive number However, it might alarm you we will create about 1,800 Exabytes (EB) of data [...]

  6. Streaming Sites Monday, April 12, 2010

    At least the post is not touting any one streaming site as the best in it’s field. I like the fact that there are many large players, each competing for my attention and time.

  7. Five Questions With… Livestream.com’s Max Haot Sunday, April 18, 2010

    [...] The hypocrisy of video platforms when dealing with piracy. There’s a consistent claim made by all video platforms that there’s no solution to video piracy due to the high volume of content. It’s simply not true. But it’s convenient to keep the growth from pirated content, thanks to the protection provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The reality is that there are many simple solutions which [Livestream] implemented successfully — for example, limiting simultaneous viewership to 50 viewers, and manually verifying channels who want a higher limit, has thwarted piracy on Livestream. If we can do it, all our competitors can. And even YouTube can do it: Our users upload more video content every hour than Youtube users. [...]

  8. best streaming sites Monday, April 19, 2010

    What you mean making money?
    I guess the best streaming sites making money from click and ads
    no?

    Dawn

  9. Livestream Blog » Blog Archive » NewTeeVee: Five Questions With Livestream.com’s Max Haot Monday, April 19, 2010

    [...] The hypocrisy of video platforms when dealing with piracy. There’s a consistent claim made by all video platforms that there’s no solution to video piracy due to the high volume of content. It’s simply not true. But it’s convenient to keep the growth from pirated content, thanks to the protection provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The reality is that there are many simple solutions which [Livestream] implemented successfully — for example, limiting simultaneous viewership to 50 viewers, and manually verifying channels who want a higher limit, has thwarted piracy on Livestream. If we can do it, all our competitors can. And even YouTube can do it: Our users upload more video content every hour than Youtube users. [...]

  10. Justgood.tv: Covering social good events | Socialbrite Monday, April 19, 2010

    [...] Live Streaming Sites Beat YouTube in Video Hours Uploaded (newteevee.com) [...]

Comments have been disabled for this post