The eternal struggle: Flash vs Windows Media
Steve Safran July 19th, 2006
First, my bias: I go with Flash. The end. No, wait. LR pal and streaming media genius Dan Rayburn breaks down the differences between Windows Media and Flash video in a considerably more mature and fact-based article. Downsides to Flash: No live encoding, no DRM, no way to download the file to the desktop (without some sneaky programs you can find, anyway), doesn’t scale up too well. Downsides to WM: you need the plugin, it’s mean to Apple, Linux and other vociferous computer users, DRM haterz hatez it, Mo’Money to Redmond. Looking forward, Rayburn is right to frame the streaming debate in terms of WindowsMedia vs Flash. RealVideo is losing steam (more desk popups, please!), QT, despite Mac users unlimited love, will not be the standard. It’s WM vs Flash, and my money’s on Flash as it has been for several years. (This is where I would put the self congratulatory link to an archived story from the early ’00s where I predicted Flash as the next coming of video. Curse you, old platform!)
11 Comments Add your own
1. thomas | July 20th, 2006 at 9:18 am
The format battle has been going strong for quite some time now. A while back when it was only flash7 vs. wmv9 the choice was pretty easy, wmv9 easily had the auido and video quality advantage while I would say compression was relatively the same. With the introduction of flash8, it showed much improved video quality and the audio was leaps and bounds better than the previous version. This puts wmv9 and flv8 much closer to each other so if audio, video and compression are comparable then what else is there to judge these codecs? Basically its comes down to browser compatability, compression time, DRM, and delivery options. Right now wmv9 is also winning that battle, the only area they fall short in is the browser compatability market. To be honest, Mac’s have been gaining popularity but still hold a small percentage of the market so when decieding what format to go with price may be the factor that leans you in one direction over another. If you use wmv9 you will loose a few percent of your possible viewers, remember that not all Mac / Linux users would watch your content. WMV9 will give you the ability to use DRM, and easy to use and setup streaming server, live capture, etc. Flash8 is great, implements easily and looks preety darn good but most sites deliver the content as “progressive download” because they do not want to spend another $10k on a Flash Streaming server. On the upside of flash8 they do offer better browser compatability. Just my thoughts…
2. spike56 | July 20th, 2006 at 10:38 am
At the end of the day, the winner will be the cross-platform solution, which is currently Flash. In the online world, cross-platform compatibility beats the competition every time. Windows Media can only be used on Windows, so you not only lose Linux and Mac users, the rapidly growing mobile media market is also unavailable. Many of those devices have Linux, Java, or other proprietary embedded operating systems.
Apple has a rapidly growing base of viewers with video downloads from iTunes, many of whom watch those videos on their iPods. Windows Media Player is non-existent in this market.
Windows Media provides a better experience on Windows, but unless they make it cross-platform (highly unlikely), it will eventually be a secondary player on the web. The quality of Flash will improve long before Windows Media goes cross-platform.
3. Tim | July 20th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Cross-platform wins, but not necessarily because it’s better for the server of the content. Flash wins because it is _one_ think I need to have supported on my PC platform.. It’s real pain to have to install a new player every time you find some media you want to see or hear. People want to click on “movie” or “audio file” or “cartoon” or whatever … they don’t really want to install software for it.
4. thomas | July 21st, 2006 at 5:52 am
I am going to have to disagree with you Spike56, not only can windows media be played on a Mac it can also be played under linux. I watched the local news on my Linux machine this morning. The issue is that it is more difficult to play windows media under linux but those who really use linux as a primary OS can certainly figure out how to get it working. Some also say that they have issues playing wmv with the Firefox browser, these people are generally those who have fallen prey on the Firefox hype and just downloaded it because they thought that it was going to be cool. On a side note, last time I checked there isnt a flash player for 64bit linux distro’s, but one is coming im guessing. In regards to the comment on cell phone and other mobile devices, I believe that preferred format is .3gp not flv. Again, just my thoughts.
5. Anonymous | July 21st, 2006 at 6:07 am
“QT, despite Mac users unlimited love, will not be the standard”
Not true: QT is very robust and now that iTunes is installed on mac and Windows computer it can be considered a strong contender.
6. spike56 | July 21st, 2006 at 11:09 am
thomas - I’m using mplayer on suse 10, and while I can watch wmv files, I have to download them first. I haven’t been able to stream them. I have all the usual browsers you get with a linux distro - firefox, konqueror, etc., and I also have opera. How are you watching the streams? Thanks!
7. thomas | July 21st, 2006 at 12:24 pm
spike56, I am using Ubuntu Dapper Drake with mplayer and Firefox. Im guessing that ‘mms’ is not a registered protocol in your browser, if your using firefox you just have to follow these steps.
1- Open Firefox, type “about:config” (no quotes) in the address window, and click enter.
2- Right click on the window and choose , then from the pop-up menu that appears.
3- In the first pop-up box, enter: “network.protocol-handler.app.mms” (no quotes, and it might just be easier to cut ‘n paste this into the box).
4- In the next pop-up box enter the path to Kaffeine (e.g. “/usr/bin/kaffeine”).
5- Now, click in the main window again but choose
6- In the first pop-up box, enter: “network.protocol-handler.external.mms”
7- In the second pop-up select .
I hope this helps, let me know if you have any more questions.
~Thomas
8. spike56 | July 22nd, 2006 at 7:42 am
Thomas - thanks much, that was very helpful!
9. Scott Jex | October 16th, 2006 at 9:04 am
QT, WMV, VP6, H.264, etc. a lot of different codec’s out there with different advantages and disadvantages. Hopefully one can be open minded enough to use the codec that is best for the job. Why would a carpenter use a screw driver to do everything when he has a toolbox full of other useful tools? Who knows maybe in the future a codec will come out that will solve all are problems and that will be so efficient and usable that it will never be replaced. In the mean time I would suggest that no standard be set. We should just use the best tool for whatever the job requires.
10. bernhard Pfennigschmidt | February 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Hi All
I believe by experience that the javascript/ browser interface ofthe wmp is giving it the edge.
I can use only wmp to produce a full screen with a button on the html page. I would be grateful if anyone knows of a similar mechanism for flash and could show it.
11. Lucy | January 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Wow, thanks for the excellent information! xxx
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed