> Live has a _huge_ advantage in the storage side. In a purely "live" sense all of the content is temporally synchronised; every viewer is requesting approximately the same segments at the same time.
Used to work at a live-streaming company on our stream infra.
I mostly disagree, unless it's pure live no replay at all and no closely timed events required. Usually live platforms will offer some sort of a VOD (VODs, Replays, Rebroadcasts), all of which will require a storage solution. Couple that in with the fact that anything requiring more complex timing than "show video live~ish" can get messy fast with sync and latency issues.
Yes, i was referring to “live only” and not VOD/“low latency hls” cases. This is a decade ago but my examples off hand are things like video game, game shows, and contests. Was definitely a category, infrastructure looked a lot closer to multicastish RTMP than todays dynamic manifest mpeg segment CDNs.
Edit: the above notwithstanding live sports etc is _still_ better on the storage side as viewers are so heavily synchronized. Lots of nice cache efficiencies when everyone is watching the same content at the same time.
Used to work at a live-streaming company on our stream infra.
I mostly disagree, unless it's pure live no replay at all and no closely timed events required. Usually live platforms will offer some sort of a VOD (VODs, Replays, Rebroadcasts), all of which will require a storage solution. Couple that in with the fact that anything requiring more complex timing than "show video live~ish" can get messy fast with sync and latency issues.