Brightcove vs. StreamShark Live Streaming Platform

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

StreamShark is well-suited for large one-to-many broadcasts, but there are more nimble videoconferencing solutions that can accommodate smaller attendance collaborative events, primarily due to the near real-time nature of videoconferencing solutions.

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.

• Easy to use interface.
• Fast buffering and load times.
• Mobile responsiveness.

• 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.

• Being able to add SRT files to pre-recorded vids intended for livestream

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

StreamShark provides prompt service that helps us maintain the availability of our streaming services.

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).

We used IBM Cloud Video (previously called Ustream) for years. StreamShark is a better product in every sense. It is a more cost effective product. They have a support team who really cares about their clients success. And their product is ultimately more reliable than IBMs.

• 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.

• Facilitates engaging communication with staff and external parties.