...
- More scalable. YouTube can distribute video much better than any locally run system. In our case we had a limit of 1GB/s, so anything over a few hundred visitors would mean the video stream got jerky and dropped out. This used to happen when someone posted a link to the stream on a popular forum such as GeenStijl.nl. , thereby DoSing the video stream
. - Multiple bit rates. We used to do transcoding into various lower bit rate streams, so that users on slow connections (mobile phones) could also watch it. This required an expensive plugin, which needed careful configuration, and which put a significant CPU burden on the streaming server. Google does this now, so no plugin needed, no CPU load, and less complex configuration.
- Youtube works on many different devices. Many mobile devices have dedicated apps for YouTube, which makes sure it plays well on those devices.
- Less support issues for end users. YouTube is the defacto standard for viewing video content on the Internet, so end users will have few issues with it.
- Users can post comments. While it is possible for users to comment on the stream, we had to disable it because eventually the comments filled up with trolling messages.
- VCR capability. You can actually skip back in time by 4 hours, which is handy if you missed some action
. - Production side can be purely IPv6 (despite the general rule "What an engineer can do, is rarely what he should do "). Both the camera and the relaying system do not need to be publicly available. The camera just needs to communicate with the relaying system, which in turn needs to talk to YouTube. Since YouTube is dual stack, this means that both the camera and the relaying system can be purely IPv6.
...