"Why is it so hard for everyone to understand that companies like vimeo, youtube , brightcove, etc are not necessarily the competition - but potentially a customer."
There is zero chance of those companies adopting Clipstream. They will never deploy a non-standard video codec. They will continue to use the extremely sophisticated, high quality, and very low cost standards. Standards that have been and are being built into the chips/silicon of every device.
"All those solutions need to transcode for multiple players in order to play across multiple devices and browsers....."
DSNY touts have made hay with that rubbish for years. From a customer standpoint of theses services, any transcode is seamless. It's actually worse as Clipstream forces the initial transcode onto the client PC so you have to sit there like a fool watching your video get transcoded into Clipstream, vs. having it transcoded seamlessly by a Vimeo or Brightcove server. There are other benefits to transcoding, like optimizing quality for different bitrates, screen sizes, etc.
Think about it - imagine the CPU cycles to encode a video 2 or 3 times. Compare that to the bandwidth and CPU cycles used to distribute that video to thousands or millions of viewers.
For Clipstream to have any chance of success, IMHO, would require:
1) Absolute parity in terms of video quality, compression efficency, etc vs. the standards, without violating the massive IP in the standards (ain't happening)
2) Hardware decode. With no "Clipstream" decode logic built into silicon, the performance drag on the CPU and battery life will be compromised - the main reason Apple dumped Flash - no hardware decode. (ain't happening)
Those would just be table stakes to have a me-too product.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
