Brightcove vs. Streamlabs

It works very nicely for our company site because it can easily and seamlessly embed into the site and email HTML pages. It also has picture in picture, sharing, closed captioning (CC) as basic functions. It will also show the time of the video. Because these are short-term-use videos or might get updated frequently and also are just targeting a specific audience, being able to hide or not able to show the number of views or date published (unlike YouTube) actually helps us.

Incentivized

Streamlabs is perfect for generating multimedia content with common elements such as cell phones, web cameras, PC screens, etc. By allowing video from multiple sources to be shown at the same time, it is perfect for example for technical product demonstrations. In the scenario described, parcticity is prioritized. However, if the proposed scenario is to generate high-quality multimedia content, you should use professional equipment for video, sound and editing.

Incentivized

• Ability to easily output a JSON response for requested video data. This makes it easy to work with Brightcove as partner.
• The read APIs are very flexible and can the output can be easily customized using cgi args. This provides great customization of the output and sorting and filtering mechanisms to find the videos you're looking for.
• The ability to add captions to videos is good, especially with the regulations requiring video captioning. DFXP support works great as long as the player is given the exact XML format it is looking for.

• Simultaneously accept various video sources such as cell phones, WEB cameras, etc.
• Accept multiple audio sources simultaneously, including PC audio.

Incentivized

• Online support could be more accessible to the layman (non-techy users can get a bit lost in the help resource library)
• Multiple user logins for the account (with different levels of access) would be useful - we work with many off-site videographers and editors
• The ability to link to an individual video within a player on our website would be great.

• Sometimes CPU resource consumption is a bit high.
• Although it is understandable some functions are restricted to the PREMIUM version.

Incentivized

It took quite some time to upload and organize our video library. The amount of time it would require to relocate all this information outweighs any negative aspect I personally have with the experience. They have been pretty good to work with and from speaking with my Brightcove rep, I know some of the issues I have listed are currently being addressed and tested for future releases.

Very usable! I don't see any major flaws

We are notified often of downtime, and I have not heard from a support rep for over a year. It really makes it hard to learn what new things are coming out and how we can take our video to the next level when there is no contact from the team on a regular cadence.

Incentivized

Marketing department favors it because EVERYONE uses YouTube. Overall, YouTube offers decent features and functionality. But Brightcove offers the ability to brand and style players, and control what our users see (and so much more) and YouTube does not. For instance, on YouTube, users are presented with other videos (which could contain competitor videos).

Although Adobe Premier Pro is a product for video professionals, it did not present the possibility of performing LIVE as Streamlabs, in addition to the fact that Adobe is a paid version exclusively. Streamlabs was more in line with our objectives as it is a tool aimed at the common user and not just professionals.

Incentivized

• Again, there has been a huge cost savings which significantly improved our ROI
• There has also been less time spent on learning new technologies and training additional staff on maintaining a video server.
• Less time spent on the previous two points has allowed me to focus on other areas within the department that needed improvement.

• Even though it is a free Open Source software, the features have been excellent.

Incentivized