It's very unusual on a pc for any user to not have multiple players installed.
I guess therefore you could be looking for information about 'what content is provided in what format' since that would give an indication of user consumption by 'format'.
Just remember that ONE provider could host ONE file, but if that file is THE piece of information that EVERYONE wants to see that day and its ONLY available in one Video-Format then everyone who that provider services will see it in that Video-Format. So perspective is everything.
I think that raises two issues:
1) On this we are all very biased to
our favoured technology (wait to read my ranting further down...!)
2) It doesn't matter to the end users any more WHAT the format is - they will get / have the technology if the CONTENT is what they want to see.
I have to say though that there are a number of folks in the market who think that YouTube hype and the UGC market's take on Flash means that the whole world is using Flash and nothing else.
Being a little cynical, Magazine publishers that publish PC magazines and hype magazines around the industry are often MAC houses. This means that Flash (being arguably easier to use than WM or other 'true' streaming technologies) is common place on their desktops and therefore in the minds of writers (and subsequently readers) of hype magazines.
Also very web-orientated portals like YouTube and so on are often well-compatible with Mac. This leads Mac users (bless them) to think that the entire universe is using Flash.
So just because the publishing market who use MAC shout from the roof tops when they finally get something new and working (years after the rest of us Wintel users have struggled along with various betas and the novelty has worn off!) they print it and talk about it like 'this is the way it should be' - (I need cite no other horrible example than how audio downloading became 'Podcasting' - urgh... how 'roller-shoe'..)
So Flash is enjoying a hype off the back of YouTube. Actually the backlash has already begun - many of the broadcast magazines this month ('Broadcast' and 'Broadcast Engineering' to cite two in front of me) have had long dialogue 'pooh-poohing' the limitations of quality of Flash.
That is not to put it to death: It is a great web designer's technology - no doubt. It runs simply. It produces great 'postage-stamp' images for web pages, embeds beautifully and 'fits in on a web page' very well.
In terms of usage, however, whatever Adobe say about their players penetration its nothing like the penetration of WMV. It can't be.
The Adobe figures are often quoted. "98% penetration of Flash".. This is such a lot of hype I find it amazing to see anyone take it seriously. Have you actually stopped to think about what this figure actually means? Does it mean that only 2% of people told that they need flash to view content say 'no'. Or does it mean that off all the machines in the whole world only 2% don't run flash - well that is a silly figure too - how can they
a) know how many machines are out there (let alone quantify those that can support flash)
b) know how many DON'T support / run flash - at least without some SERIOUS spyware...
Now as you will have guessed I am somewhat lukewarm about flash(!). While it is a serious player in the sector, I don't believe it will be a true Set Top Box Technology. Not for a few years yet. We implemented it on a set top box for a company I consult for and it was a fun project. However it was very heavy in its ancillary requirements and strictly speaking the licensing model was impossible to work out let alone scale because of its dependence on so many other parts of the PC type operating system or third party applications. It worked - but unless the content ran off one of their lovely and expensive media servers our STB really fought with the prog. download nature of the http hosting. Oh and not a lot of live stuff - which was key for the STB.
Finally, and being a specialist in Live Streaming, Flash is a pain and stupidly expensive for anything apart from a small conference stream. Certainly when you compare to WMV.
I have run out of cold water to pour on the flash fanatics!... I look forward to their hearty responses - perhaps I can be converted... :-)
Let's look at the other technology options out there:
MPEG-4 - Common for mobile phones and IPTV. Struggling as a standard since it has moved slowly - not commonly used for anything online since compatibility and authoring is a pain. Too many versions - despite being called a 'standard'. Remember MPEG-4 was established as a technology for 'low bitrate streaming in error prone networks' so in many ways all these IP streaming technologies are part of the close family..
H.264 - Often confused with MPEG-4 (and very similar), but NOT a broadcast standard - only an ITU (telecoms) standard (hence differs from MPEG-4). Interesting for some broadcast applications on a point to point basis.
Real Media - Running at a given figure of about 11% "codec penetration" (??) - now supporting WMV even on their own portals. Actually working on a large amount of great MSP projects and other technologies - importantly they are the only tech group with money seriously investing and innovating in this space - one to always watch. Arguably loosing foothold to WMV in the big commercial games (BBC is prime example) by the day. Spent a lot of time focused on anti-trust cases (actually to great profit - nearly $1bn) but lost a few yards on their position while doing so. Remember that MS have a share foothold in there - as they still do with Mac.. (so much for competition!)
Java - Same bin as flash (browser and quality limited) - but even more stupid pricing models. Only ever really seen this and similar m-jpeg like stuff really take off on security webcam models and on their own demos (and a rare few film trailers). I have seen at least 5 Java based companies come and go in the past 10 or 11 years.
OK - now on to the big one. WMV.
I hold my hand up - WMV is my favored technology.
If you want to do BIG stuff then WMV scales well and is cheap.
Despite the paperwork process to get licenses it is a straightforward process to license if you need to deploy its technology as part of yours.
It works cross platform (yes, even DRM can be licensed for 'nux (and thus Mac)- which a lot of folks forget).
It has a relatively robust DRM where the others are way behind and actually at best offer a conditional access model and not a true DRM.
It has extremely good quality from LBR audio to HD.
It is reliable - we have used it in several large IPTV deployments in the past year, and on one platform I work with we distribute many 10s of millions of streams per month with high 9 availability.
It is flexible - and has all the built in functionality that one expects from a broadcast technology.
And this brings me onto the killer point. Microsoft bothered to standardize VC-1 with SMPTE. This means that Content Providers will buy into it as a future proof technology. So when it comes to the expensive process of purposing your content for digital storage and distribution WMV is not only a safe bet, it has clearly already made the 'home run' where NONE of the others (even MPEG-4) have yet as far as broadcasters are concerned.
Now that means that if you want to create, or host or distribute or deploy decoders WMV is safe and ubiquitous.
The same is not true of any other of these technologies.
That was a smart move by MS. Then again they are in a good position to make smart moves, but I don't sell codecs, I use them so I don't feel pressured to comment on their strategy from that aspect.
If you view streaming is all about hosting lots of small VoD clips for access through web portals (which is a very serious and large market) then I would seriously consider the pros and cons of all the technologies and Flash is quick, dirty and certainly good-enough.
If you consider streaming includes IPTV / Broadband TV and broadcast technologies then whatever your view on Microsoft, there is actually only one player in town at the moment and that is Windows Media.
