Comments on: StreamAPI Opens Live Video Funtionality To All On Facebook

By: Justin.tv Opens Its API For Free, Hopes Live Video Will Explode | Spin Valley Post

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:30:34 +0000

[...] free, ad-supported APIs. We watched them all rush to serve live video on Facebook’s platform last month, but opening it up to any app developer on the web for free is potentially much more [...]

By: Justin.tv Opens Its API For Free, Hopes Live Video Will Explode

Justin.tv Opens Its API For Free, Hopes Live Video Will Explode — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:21:49 +0000

By: Vishmer

Vishmer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:42:10 +0000

How is StreamAPI different from using TenM3. The latter is a generic site that allows you to stream LIVE feeds, embed etc. I saw an email that you can monitor your home for $1/Month onwards ( using a panasonic camera & their service ). That is significantly cheaper then Stream ?? Feeds are nice and can be used for Video CCs too, however, I am not sure if the rate is 10 cents or 20 cents per hour ( still cheap )

By: Andri Duff

Andri Duff — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:22:38 +0000

i cant see the streaming, nothing show up there?

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:13:41 +0000

this isn’t the same thing as Ustream…this is just the video

Ustream is free, ad-supported and white-label….this is all pay as you go

By: Facebook Connect and Comment Widgets | ShawnDrewry.com

Facebook Connect and Comment Widgets | ShawnDrewry.com — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:55:53 +0000

[...] StreamAPI Opens Live Video Funtionality To All On Facebook (techcrunch.com) [...]

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:16:47 +0000

Except that 99,9% of Facebook users don’t know about S3 & EC2, and probably have a quite blurred idea of what “bandwidth” mean.

So 0,45$/GB not to have to worry about these things, and access a simple on-demand service is totally ok with them.

Most CDN BW rates can go down to less than 0,1$ if you’re a BW guzzler – which I suppose, will soon be the case for StreamAPI.

That leaves a healthy 0,35$ to absorb dev. cost and make profit. Pretty sound business model.

The only thing is : they need to be very precise estimating BW needs – in most of the cases, you have to pay for a yearly bulk.

By: Peter Urban

Peter Urban — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:58:19 +0000

hahahahahaha missing ‘C’ that is .

English language = difficult speech 4 me.

more confused

By: Peter Urban

Peter Urban — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:41:42 +0000

Is the missing k in ‘Live Video Fun[k]tionality…’ in title and link some sort of insider joke?

confused.

By: Morgan Warstler

Morgan Warstler — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:36:10 +0000

Because that is a benefit, not a feature.

By: Alan Anderson

Alan Anderson — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:23:25 +0000

I get a error

By: Interesting

Interesting — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:19:44 +0000

Stickam is owned by porn companies:

http://www.nyti...nyt&emc=rss

Why do they need to charge for anything?

By: Dan Blake

Dan Blake — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:16:57 +0000

Great comment that almost makes it look like you know what you are talking about.
S3 and EC2 both share the same bandwidth rates and the costs associated with streaming ( hardware ) are nominal – Its primarily a bandwidth issue. And if you are paying for the bandwidth, what does it matter if they offer “”HD”" – If you want to foot the bill, Il be happy to serve up blu-ray quality, after all- who gives a shit, you’re paying.

By: Jonathan Dusing

Jonathan Dusing — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:12:33 +0000

Streaming live video (stream api) and serving files (s3) are two very different things. It should cost a fair amount more, and I think streamapi is one of the cheapest out there while still getting options for video quality up to HD.

However I don’t see how they compete on facebook with UStream being free….

By: Dan Blake

Dan Blake — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:49:42 +0000

How in gods name do they think they are going to get away with 45 cents a gig?!

Even amazons insanely overpriced bandwidth is only .17 cents per GB.

Crazy.