It's not mis information. Read through my dd and it will prove to you very easily that the negative mis-information that has been spread about Rays is wrong.
You see Rays never claimed to have a completed product. But now they are close to having it finished. And everyone of the articles condemning the RAYS technology was a farce. Rays tech is legit and can be read about in truth right here.
In the article on RAYS at the Street Sweeper it begins by saying:
"In reality, however, Raystream appears to be selling open-source software – available at no charge – to anyone who wishes to use it. That software, known as “x264,”"
After doing some research I found this to be incorrect.
RAYS filings indicated they expected to release Raystream 1.0 in the summer of 2012. Just before the summer was their last PR before they stopped the flow of press releases.
Their last PR in 2012 RAYS), a global HD video compression services company, today announced new technology enhancements to its custom-designed HD video compression solutions that enable higher performance capabilities in speed, output flexibility and quality. Through its various client evaluation agreements, Raystream has garnered invaluable feedback on its HD compression technology and has refined and enhanced its cloud video compression platform. Raystream’s highly scalable, real-time service provides improved parallel processing and performance and advanced video output settings. Performance advances include custom GPU encoding and transcoding as high as 90 frames per second (fps). Additionally, the advanced video settings enable the user to customize output files in a number of different video and audio codecs, bitrates and format extensions.
So 1 year and a half after the Streetsweeper article in which Raystream was criticized for "selling an open source software," RAYS openly admitted they were still working on their product, confirming what I said earlier about RAYS never saying they were finished, and also confirming my thoughts about Glaser's bashing comments in the street sweeper article (if they are truely his comments). My thoughts on his comments is that he was comparing apples with apples, and not apples to oranges. The product was unique because the source code was different, and was masked inside the x264 video, and let me explain how. Glaser never stated they ripped off his tech. Also Glasers tech is under a General public license. Here is some info about GPL's which allow RAYS to mask their video source code inside of the x264.
The GNU Lesser General Public License or LGPL (formerly the GNU Library General Public License) is a free software license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The LGPL allows developers and companies to use and integrate LGPL software into their own (even proprietary) software without being required (by the terms of a strong copyleft) to release the source code of their own software-parts.
The terms and conditions of the GPL must be made available to anybody receiving a copy of the work that has a GPL applied to it ("the licensee"). Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version. The licensee is allowed to charge a fee for this service, or do this free of charge. This latter point distinguishes the GPL from software licenses that prohibit commercial redistribution. The FSF argues that free software should not place restrictions on commercial use,[34] and the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.
Software under the GPL may be run for all purposes, including commercial purposes and even as a tool for creating proprietary software, for example when using GPL-licensed compilers.[35] Users or companies who distribute GPL-licensed works (e.g. software), may charge a fee for copies or give them free of charge.
"Glaser's" comments are worthless, just like his x264 software. He never commented on the quality of the video. He just said a bunch of garbage about them using x264 on the title...and then this... Secondly, Garret-Glaser indicated, Raystream has touted a compression rate that – even when boosted toward 90% -- falls well short of that recorded by others in the field.
Compression rate is different than what RAYSTREAM's software is best at...
The Raystream version 1.0 release empowers our platforms to deliver an intuitive, browser based experience to our customers giving them the ability not only to encode raw HD content, but also transcode those same files or digital streams into multiple alternate formats facilitating content delivery to a multitude of internet connected devices, including PCs, Laptops, Macs, iPhone, iPad, PS3, Xbox, Android devices and other smart phones and DLNA devices (Smart TVs).
All of the videos we watch on our computers, tablets, mobile phones and set-top boxes must go through an encoding process to convert the original “source” video to be viewable on these devices. Why? Because different devices and browsers support different video formats. This process can also be called “transcoding” or “video conversion.”
You see RAYS may have a slightly slower compression rate, but that's because the quality of HD video coming through is much higher than x264...
... the BIGGEST difference between x264 and RAYSTREAM -is that RAYSTREAM is "proprietary software." Which means it can be sold and more carefully copyrighted. and x264 is a "General Public License" which Glaser has made free to the public.
And now Rays has a 98% completed product per recent PR.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
