Some confusion about video feeds

What's wrong with just a link to the file?

[jmwebguy]

Can someone help me understand something.

I ahve been investigating for a client the needs to integrate video on their website.

Back in the day, all I had to do was put an HREF link to the RAM file and viola! RealPlayer opened and there's the video. Sure, someone can right click and save it, but who cares.

Now I see all these "Streaming Video" hosting companies. I know I can still do the HREF link, so why have someone else host it for me?

I believe one advantage may be that I can actually embed the video and not have RealPlayer open up. Another is that the person cannot download the video. What else? What are the advantages for have a Streaming Video hosting company do all this for me? What are the disadvantages for just using a link to the RAM file?

Thanks!

[photon]

One advantage that comes to mind immediately is bandwidth. If your host has a small bandwidth limit on your site, large video files could reach that limit quickly. Using a separate host offloads that bandwidth usage.

[richlowe]

The user does not have to wait for the download. Streaming starts the video up immediately. When the href method, they have to wait for the whole thing. Richard

[jmwebguy]

Rich,
Are you completely sure about that? I'm not disagreeing, just confirming.

[HughMungus]

The user does not have to wait for the download. Streaming starts the video up immediately. When the href method, they have to wait for the whole thing. Richard

Incorrect. The video will start playing as soon as enough of it has been downloaded.

[jmwebguy]

So Hugh, can you tell me any disadvantages to just using an HREF?

[richlowe]

Sorry, you are correct. streams don't start immediately, just seems that way on my dsl line. While non-streams I've got to wait for the whole thing.