I integrated Ant Media to send data from WebRTC to Ant Media and then from Ant Media to YouTube. Ant Media serves as the connector where I send data from Ant Media to YouTube to enable live streaming through Ant Media. This was my requirement and I have integrated it properly.
I integrated Ant Media by sending WebRTC to the Ant Media endpoint. When I create a new video, I create the project site or video name in Ant Media and simultaneously create the video name on YouTube. I use whatever Ant Media endpoint I receive from Ant Media and point it with the WebRTC. When I start the WebRTC live streaming, that command also initiates live streaming in Ant Media, and Ant Media sends all of that to YouTube. Ultimately, I am starting three live streams with the WebRTC: one from WebRTC, one from Ant Media, and one from YouTube. After starting the live streaming, the data from WebRTC is sent to Ant Media and from Ant Media to YouTube. This was the workflow I created and integrated into my project.
The process was straightforward. I only need to use the API endpoint from Ant Media and configure it into my project. The WebRTC automatically fetches it and sends the data through the Ant Media endpoint to YouTube. It is straightforward with no complex business logic required.
Ant Media offers many features that depend on the version you choose. When using the beginner and professional versions, those features are related to your payment plan. When using a beginner or lower level, the features involve streaming data, FPS, data file from the image, image resolution, image quality, and other components you need to send from WebRTC to Ant Media. Those configurations are available in Ant Media and show how you want to send those media to YouTube. These are the best features, but you need to pay more to get better functionality or better resolution.
When using a development level, such as dev, UAT, and production environments, while testing, you do not have all the features and you do not have higher quality when sending the data. When you pay more and have a paid version of Ant Media, they will provide you with the best quality for how you want to send the data to YouTube or elsewhere. This is the basic principle: when you pay more, you receive better resolution.
Ant Media is configurable from the web using WebRTC. If I want to do a live streaming project, I would have to create a Flutter application on Android or iOS, but with Ant Media, I can integrate from the browser itself. I only have to pass the Ant Media endpoint API to a Chrome browser from WebRTC. It is easily configurable, and my organization works on live streaming projects. This is the best way to use Ant Media because you can integrate your simplest or quickest version when you have a deadline or specific live streaming needs.
It basically saves time. Previously, we were creating our own web server and media server. We no longer need that media server and can just use Ant Media directly. There is no doubt that we are paying for Ant Media, but once you acquire users, they start using your website and start WebRTC live streaming through your application. You increase your customer base, and then you can move to a paid version. Ultimately, Ant Media saves your time, money, and the cost of buying a separate web server or media server. Instead of that investment, use Ant Media, get the endpoint, configure it, and do the live streaming.
Ant Media needs many improvements. Sometimes I am not getting proper video resolution, and it is lagging. Those issues need to be addressed for better resolution and better video quality.
I have used Ant Media from last six years.
My advice for others looking into using Ant Media is that if they want to make it a product, they need to buy a higher version. Otherwise, they will experience lagging issues or video quality issues. This review has received a rating of eight point nine out of ten.