Since Flash MX and Sorenson Squeeze were released, a lot of people have asked the question "What do we need Flix for?" From looking at the Wildform website and through message boards, it looks like you guys have had to answer that question a lot. Do you feel that the Flash community is starting to see that Flix as a product that is still needed?

The question arose when people first heard about the video capabilities in Flash MX - before they really got a look at the functionality that Flash MX offered. The question was whether potential Wildform customers who were buying Flash MX still needed the features and functionality of Flix since Flash MX has some video support. I think the answer to that is an obvious yes. To a large extent, Macromedia provided that answer by including a link to another company's video encoding software from within Flash MX which clearly indicates that they think their video capabilities are inadequate. The challenge for us has been to inform potential customers about Flix's capabilities and advantages.

For our existing customers, there has never been any doubt as to whether our product is extremely useful and a major time-saving, productivity enhancing software which can be even more useful if you own the Flash authoring tool. When Macromedia announced their inclusion of video support in Flash MX, they left out a lot of essential information from their marketing. For instance, they didn't - and still don't - mention that Flash MX video output only plays in the Flash 6 player. Many of our customers are using Flix's MX video output, but they are also using our Flash 3-6 video which plays in any Flash player version 3-6. This is especially valuable for advertising and marketing applications where the client wants the video to have the widest possible reach - and not require viewers to download a new player.

Additionally, Flash MX's video capabilities are extremely limited. For instance, they have no bitrate control. It is virtually impossible to create video for the web without bitrate control. Their controls on image size, framerate and a host of other features are very rudimentary or non-existent. They also do not output FLV files required to import MX video into Flash. Finally, there have been many reported bugs with Flash MX such as problems with audio sync and the program crashing when attempting to import video. It seems that they purposefully crippled their video functions in order to spur sales of the Sorenson Squeeze software for which there is a link in their software. I know of no other major software manufacturer that includes a link to buy another company's software from within their own product. It seems like a very strange decision on Macromedia's part.

"...they didn't - and still don't - mention that Flash MX video output only plays in the Flash 6 player."

In any event, the video capabilities of Flash MX are inadequate for anyone trying to do any serious video work in Flash. In addition, Flix offers so many other features from batch encoding and watermarking to automatic swf functions and our unique vector video output, that there is a long list of reasons why Flix is the solution for people looking to work with video in Flash and people who need a fast, easy and inexpensive way to create video for the web, CD roms, portable devices and presentations. Recently we also released Flix Lite, which sells for only $49 and is a great product for people who need a quick Flash video solution, but who don't need all the features and capabilities of Flix Pro.

Are less or more people asking the question?

Other than this question now, I haven't been asked that in a long time. :)

Some have referred to Wildform's response towards Sorenson Squeeze as being negative. An example would be on the Flix and Squeeze comparison page where Jen deHaan is quoted as saying "Thank you so much for the Pro edition. I found in all my testing, and reported, that Flix definitely does a much better job than Squeeze in quality and file size (not to mention Squeeze kept generating errors and corrupted .swfs!) You definitely have a great product there. Plus the addition of FLV in the Pro edition is wonderful!"

In reference to the Squeeze comments, do you feel this marketing approach is negative? What would you say to those who think this type of marketing is counterproductive?

Nothing worth mentioning.

I don't actually agree with that assessment. Squeeze does have a few filters that we do not. However Flix has numerous swf functions that can be added automatically to your output, that Squeeze does not provide. With Flix you can encode your video, add custom elements and post it on the web in three clicks. Squeeze really just encodes video. It offers no Flash functions. To give you an idea, Squeeze doesn't output html code to play a video, it has no swf play controls to stop, loop, preload, or autoload another swf, and it doesn't even allow you to place a link in your video. As for the filters they offer, they are nice, but the fact is that if your source video does not look good, no amount of filtering is going to change that, so the filters are of limited value.

As to whether we could ever work together in the future…who knows what can happen?