Thanks for the warm thoughts.
Why the streaming server? Well, I gotta tell you, that was the easy
part of the decision, but not something that i'd be recommending.
I work for Eyeblaster, which if you clicked the link, you'd see is a
rich media ad server. They just introduced a VideoClip suite, which
is designed as an advertising and content management system for web
publishers. It allows you to serve ads into content streams.
The biggest reason to use the Eyeblaster Video clip was sheer
bandwidth. I didn't want to run into the possibility of using more
bandwidth than my ISP and host allow. So by using Eyeblaster's video
clip, I can deliver higher quality video, and more of it, without
running up against any limitations. And, I just wanted to see if I
could do it.
I'm going to save my file/bandwidth/upload/download limits for my
friends to grab stuff off my FTP, not for the videoblogging.
So I had all the scripts to make a call to the Eyeblaster Ad Server,
and can use that to manage my video content. Its a nice luxury to
have, and makes me look good in the office as well.
> alright, welcome.
> youre now one of like 50 people videoblogging that we know of.
> can you explain in more detail how youre running your videoblog?
> why a streaming server?
> why not just downloads?
> just curious about the choices….
> like the text you wrote.
> make sense.