Miro, the open source, open access, open distribution and pretty much anything else open titled has just released it’s, hopefully, penultimate version before the milestone 1.0 release. So, along with Preview Release 3 they’ve also gone head to head with the media’s current star pupil, Joost.
For those that don’t know, Joost is an on-demand, streaming video service started by the guys behind Skype.
The guys behind Miro have launched the “Why Miro is better than Joost” chart. A chart which basically runs down the philosophy, structure, technology and restrictions of each product. The basic idea behind this is that Joost is bad for creators, bad for viewers and bad for the Internet. A blog post by the executive director of the PCF, Nicholas Reville, explain in more detail why Miro is the better software.
The main points of the blog and chart are correct:
Miro does let you access and watch video from *any* RSS feed on the Internet whilst Joost restricts you to watch video from any of it’s pre-selected “channels.”
Miro does allow anyone to create their own channel, own channel guide and holds no restriction or contract over what can and cannot be shown. Whilst, reportedly, Joost requires broadcasters to sign a contract which (one day) could be an exclusive one.
Miro does not have any DRM associated with it as it’s merely a aggregation tool whilst all Joost videos are DRM encrypted and can only be watched in the Joost player.
Miro is available on all major platforms and is updated concurrently whilst Joost launched Windows only and still lacks a native Linux client.
Miro does use the standard BitTorrent where available thus reducing the bandwidth cost broadcasters whilst Joost serves everything across it’s own proprietary P2P network.
However, after wondering whether this mud slinging was just a jealous move by the Miro guys as Joost is the darling child and currently has the backing of plenty of $. I then started to think.. These two programs are as alike as email and instant messaging. Joost is an on demand video streaming service like your cable box. You flick it on when you have nothing particular to watch. Miro is a video aggregator, running 24/7 and downloading the favourite shows that you subscribe to. It’s more similar to a TiVo, Sky Plus or V+. Whilst I’ve only really played with Joost briefly as I don’t have a Windows machine I do know that it is a completely different experience to the one you would have with Miro. Miro is all about waiting. From waiting for the channel guide to appear, to waiting for a program to download. For people that use it to watch hour long videos as I do, you can be waiting upto 40 minutes before it’s downloaded and you’re ready to watch. Joost on the other hand is nice to just chuck on when you’ve got a spare twenty minutes and just feel like watching something but haven’t got any of your regular shows to watch. They’re two completely different things and to compare them is daft. Sure, one day down the line Joost may require it’s broadcasters to have an exclusive contract but it’s not going to kill Internet Video. The guys that are in it for love will always be there trying new and innovative technology and not locking themselves in. The people that will be locking themselves in? Well, they’ll be similar to the people currently on broadcast TV. Is that such a great loss?
Are Miro right for out right accusing Joost of ruining Internet video? From the tone it felt a little childish “they’re getting more attention than me, let’s poo-poo it” for me and that’s not really the philosophy behind the open culture. If Joost suceeds and brings more people over to the idea of using their computer as a entertainment device then I think it can only be good for everyone. It will expose more people to the idea and those that want to just skim the surface and watch the limited amount of programming will stick with Joost.. but you’ll find that some of these people will want to delve a little deeper, will want to find something to fill their niche and will discover the world of RSS and video feeds… I mean, Joost is never going to have a program like LugRadio on it, is it?
Miro is great for scheduling your favourite shows that you watch every episode of.
Joost is great for throwing on when none of the above have downloaded.
If Miro, finally, get round to adding streaming video like everybody has requested… Well, then it’s another ball game! Until then, why compare Oranges with Apples? Play nicely!
Cursing Nokia… release the next n95 update!
B
While I agree that Miro definitely has a number of advantages, the communication backend ain’t one of them. Yes, Miro uses bittorrent, and while Joost is proprietary, it’s basically the same thing as skype in terms of network communication engine. It’s sounds like a pretty cool protocol in terms of bandwidth distribution, and just as likely to decrease broadcaster’s bandwidth costs.
Yeh, I’m not 100% sure on whether Joost content comes from Joost servers to their P2P network or whether content producers host the content and serve to users?
As for Miro, I agree, it’s BitTorrent implementation is appalling, but is OS so could be worked on. But I’ve found that for someone that doesn’t have the world’s biggest or most reliable connection (2Mbps) and behind a hardware firewall it seems to work better than Joost which I found couldn’t hold a connection and would end up filling my routers NAT table with lots of connections.
Of course, the Miro article doesn’t take into account that I’d say nearly 90% of the content listed is straight HTTP traffic which isn’t very good for broadcasters either!
The more I think about it I just find this a move (the “Why is Miro better” campaign) one that will turn round and bite them in the end because it just seems so wrong.