Telestream To Acquire Anystream Business From Grab Networks

Ts Back in January I wrote that Grab Networks was in talks to sell off their Anystream product Line and speculated that Telestream would be the likely buyer. In a call this morning with executives from Grab Networks, Telestream
and Anystream, the companies confirmed to me that Telestream has agreed to acquire the Anystream business from Grab Networks. Terms of the deal were not disclosed and I haven't yet had the chance to
ask around to try and determine the value Telestream placed on
Anystream's business. While both companies have agreed to the acquisition terms, it will be a few more weeks before the deal closes and it is official.

While many acquisitions tend to be complex, this one is the opposite. The value to Telestream in this deal is they now manage Anystream's line of Agility and Velocity products, which are enterprise class transcoding and media management platforms. This is a perfect fit for Telestream's core business and allows them to continue their push into the enterprise vertical. While some might think that Telestream and Anystream already compete, there is not much overlap between the two and Anystream's product line gives Telestream new products to add to their portfolio.

Telestream also gets a company that was profitable within Grab Networks and gets access to 600 customers across 38 countries. About 30 of Anystream's employees including those in engineering, sales and marketing will be added to Telestream's workforce, which will total about 160 employees once the deal is official. Telestream says they are hard at work to integrate Anystream's product line and branding within the company and expects to be able to roll out a unified message to the market around IBC.

For Grab Networks, selling the Anystream business really helps them divest a product line that was no longer part of their core focus. The deal now gives Grab Networks even more resources and capital to focus on their core product, which is a multi-platform video syndication network and video management offering.

Sponsored by

CDN Flashback: Enron’s CDN Presentation From 1999

Enron In 1999, well before the downfall of Enron, the company was attempting to build out an IP based network for content delivery. While the service never materialized, I will give Enron credit for using the term “application delivery platform” well before anyone else was even thinking about video based applications. Of course, even though they used that term it didn’t help make them successful and the company never achieved their goal of being able to support 100M desktops, let alone get the service off the ground. For those who remember Enron’s pitch, the PDF will bring back some memories or just how out of touch with reality Enron really was. You’ll also see from the presentation that in 1999, “high bit rate rich streaming multimedia” was considered a video encoded for 400Kbps. Today, that bitrate would be nearly 10x what it was in 1999.

CDN Flashback: Digital Island Pricing From 2000, $140 Per GB

Di I was going through some files in my computer backups and came across this PDF that outlines Digital Island's content delivery, caching, storage and co-location pricing from 2000. It's incredible to see not only the rate of decline in pricing when compared to today, but also how that rate was accelerated due to the quality of video increasing and the number of bits being delivered. I have a lot of documents like this ranging from 1996 until present on hundreds of vendors in the industry. If anyone is ever looking for specific info from a company that's no longer in the space, feel free to send me an email and I'll let you know what I have. And if you have PDFs of vendors sales and marketing brochures from back in the days, please let me know.

The Real Facts Behind The Akamai and Brightcove Announcement

This morning, Brightcove and Akamai announced an alliance to work together giving Brightcove another CDN besides Limelight to deliver traffic over and gives Akamai customers the ability to use Brightcove’s video platform service. Unfortunately, when the deal was announced, instead of fellow bloggers being interested in getting the story accurate, many of them stated that Brightcove was leaving Limelight for Akamai which is not accurate.

This morning, when I spoke to the companies involved in the deal (Brightcove and Limelight), one of them mentioned that not a single blogger who had published a post about the announcement had even spoken to them or asked to verify any details of the deal. So you have half a dozen posts about the deal with not a single one of those reporters even talking to the companies involved Limelight or Brightcove about Limelight losing traffic. I’m not going to call out the bloggers by name, they know who they are, but that’s a really poor job on their part. The business of blogging now seems to be who can get the story up first, or who can write for the best headline as opposed to who can get the story right. (see: The Business Of Blogging Is Ruining The Medium)

Brightcove is not taking their customers off of the Limelight network and moving them to Akamai. In fact, Brightcove has written that they are “adding Akamai on an non-exclusive basis” in addition to Limelight. The deal allows Brightcove to work with the number one and number two CDNs in the market which will enable Brightcove to further grow their business. In a call with Brightcove this morning, the company explained to me that they wanted to work with both CDNs to leverage the strengths of each network in specific geographic regions. Brightcove commented that they do see a difference between the Akamai and Limelight networks in certain regions of the world and that working with each company allows them to offer the best solution to the market in that region.

In addition, while I didn’t raise this subject with Brightcove on my call with them, if the company is truly gearing up to go public sometime soon like we expect, you can’t have all your eggs in one basket and be tied to one CDN. Having an agreement in place with the number one and number two CDNs in the market is something Brightcove would have to have in place to be able to show diversity. It’s a smart deal for them on multiple fronts and one that really should not come as a surprise to anyone.

For those that wonder what the price difference is for Brigthcove between Akamai and Limelight, I can’t say. But Brightcove did go on record to say that they are, “not charging a premium for Akamai services” and that their rate card won’t change due to the Akamai relationship. Akamai won’t be reselling Brightcove’s service, but rather will be bringing Brightcove into deals when customers need the Brightcove solution and will then allow Brightcove to sell direct to the customer. This is quite different from many of the other deals Akamai has announced with OVPs where they are directly reselling their solution. In those cases, like with Ooyala, those deals are exclusive with Akamai, where as the deal with Brightcove is non-exclusive.

If Brightcove was moving all of their traffic from Limelight to Akamai, anyone who covers the space closely enough would know that a transition like that would have a negative impact on Limelight’s earnings. Yet last week, Limelight said on their earnings call that they expect their CDN revenue would grow 15% quarter over quarter in Q3 and Q4. That’s some very good growth projections for them which would not be possible if they had just lost a big customer like Brigthcove like some are implying.

There were also some assumptions by bloggers that Limelight’s acquisition of Delve Networks was the driving force behind Brigthcove wanting to work with Akamai, implying that Limelight was now going to compete with Brightcove. For starters, the Delve Networks solution is more focused on enterprise than anything else and even Brigthcove said, “we did not see them in very many deals at all, simply because they were a small player with limited resources.” Not to mention, on Limelight’s earnings call last week, Limelight’s CEO made reference to having spoken to Brightcove’s CEO about the Delve purchase before it happened, so it’s not like Brightcove didn’t know about the deal. Also, lets not forget that Akamai has it’s own OVP in house already, the Stream OS platform which they acquired from the Nine Systems acquisition. So if Brightcove was so worried about Limelight having the Delve OVP in-house, they would have the same issue at Akamai who has the Stream OS platform in-house.

This deal is very straight-forward. Brightcove wants to have more flexibility to work with multiple CDNs, not to mention increase their revenue, and Akamai wants to be able to offer their customers the services Brightcove offers. Akamai has been wanting to work with Brightcove for some time and their sales reps have constantly told me that they hated not being able to sell the Brightcove solution like Limelight sales reps have had. Akamai’s in-house Stream OS platform has never materialized like the company expected and working with Brightcove is a natural fit for them to offer a better solution than they have in-house.

This deal is not complex or hard to understand and does not contain a lot of the drama that some bloggers are implying. It’s a smart move for both Brightcove and Akamai and one that should bring value to both companies.

Updated: Akamai customers have always been able to use Brightcove with their Akamai account. When I said it “gives Akamai customers the ability to use Brightcove’s video platform service,” I made it sound as if this was a new feature when it isn’t.

Updated List Of Vendors In The Content Delivery Network Business

It’s been six months since I updated my list of carriers, telcos and pure-play companies in the CDN business and in that time, there have been a couple of new entrants to the market. Here’s an updated list of companies offering CDN services in the industry, broken down between pure-play CDNs versus non pure-play vendors like carriers and telcos. (To make the list easier to find on my blog, all you have to do is go to www.cdnlist.com for the latest update

Non Pure-Play CDNs

Pure-Play CDNs

Before anyone starts saying it’s not fair to put all these folks on a list, please read my disclaimer in one of my recent posts which explains many of the differences between the CDN vendors in the market.

Netflix’s Deal With EPIX Adds Less Than 300 Movies, None In HD

As a Netflix customer, I think it is great the company is licensing more digital content. But the deal they announced this morning with EPIX will only give Netflix access to less than 300 movies to add to their inventory. And while EPIX already streams a lot of their movies in HD via the EPIXHD.com website, (Hands-On Review With EPIX's Movie Streaming Service) Netflix will only be getting access to EPIX's movie inventory in standard definition and not in HD.

Neither company is giving out any details on when the content will be available on Netflix but you can take a look at the current list of 306 movies that EPIX has available by going to www.epixhd.com/all-movies. While rumors of the licensing deal are saying that Netflix will pay EPIX $1B over five years, I find that number hard to believe. Even if Netflix got access to all of EPIX's current inventory, they would be paying an average of $200M a year for less than 300 movies. That's an average of $650,000 per movie. That can't be right.

New CDN Prime Networks, Backed By Andreessen Horowitz, Launching In Asia

Prime-logo While one could very well argue that there are already too many content delivery vendors in the market, that doesn’t seem to be stopping more companies from entering the space. The latest, Prime Networks, was founded in 2008 and last year, got an undisclosed amount of funding from Andreessen Horowitz, the venture capital firm named after co-partner Marc Andreessen, the co-founder of Netscape.

Normally, I’d say that Prime Networks has no shot at making it in an already crowded CDN market, but the one thing they have going for them is that their area of focus is outside North America. Of course, they aren’t the only CDN vendor that’s focusing on a specific region in Asia, but with over 400M internet users in China alone, the market for content delivery services in Asia is expected to see some serious growth. The growth in the region won’t guarantee that Prime Networks will be successful, but at least their odds are a little bit better than if they were launching in the U.S.

Prime Networks currently has 100Gbps of network capacity and has 40 customers to date, including MSN China. The company is still defining their North American based strategy and chances are, will enter up partnering with a U.S. based company rather than build out their own network in the U.S.

While the company has been pretty quiet to date and hasn’t done much in the way of marketing, one hopes that when they are ready, that they learn from the past mistakes other CDNs have made in entering the market. The company is going to need to communicate to customers a real message of who they are and what they do and not simply use a bunch of marketing terms. Right now, Prime’s website talks about how they are a “next generation content delivery network” and that their advantage is that they differentiate with their “reliability, performance, and customer service.” Basically the exact same things all the other CDNs say.

Prime Networks also says that their “content delivery solutions consistently outperform other current CDNs in terms of both speed and availability, as measured by third party testing services“, yet they provide no details of on the results or the testing. They say to contact them for results of the third party tests, yet I’ve sent in three emails and received no response. Their website also says that the company was founded “by a team dedicated to building leading technologies to provide world
class solutions to the most challenging and dynamic CDN markets in the
world
,” yet they don’t list any executives or even a CEO by name which is a little strange.

It’s possible the company just wants to stay under the radar for now and not provide a lot of details on what they are up to, but it would then be best for them not to make such bold claims about their service on their website.