The Good
* Straightforward and easy to use.
* Allows users to convert multiple different types of videos to FLV format.
* Gives users the option to publish directly to an Amazon S3 account, or publish locally.
* Allows users to customize the "preview" image.
* Allows users to watermark videos.

The Bad
* Cannot merge multiple videos together.
* Lacks the ability to publish directly to a website, such as via FTP.
* Needs better organization in output folder when publishing locally.
* Needs an option to either automatically take users to output folder or to allow users to open output folder easily via a button when publishing locally.
* Lacks proper documentation/Help section.

Free Alternatives
iWisoft Video Converter + Youtube (or any other video hosting service)

For final verdict, recommendations, and full review please click here.

Ashraf  –  16 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+102)

Traducir

This uses a bunch of open-source code (I didn't check the legality). It's huge because it uses its own Java Runtime Environment (and people complain about .NET). It's very sloppy for a version 1.3--spelling errors, problems with default folders, shows the output folder as a link but it isn't, dumps preview JPEGs into the source folder, etc. The biggest issue for me is that it only supports the largely obsolete FLV format--no H.264, WebM, etc.

Fubar  –  16 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+35)

Traducir

This is a Java application, it will install all needed Java Runtime files in the program installation folder. (Installer: 69.1 MB, After install: 153 MB) The FLV Mate it self only cost about 20 MB of disk space, the rest 100 over MB is used by Java Runtime files. The question is... does it really necessary to use Java Runtime for this kinda application? Maybe the author should consider to use other programming language. You can't really trim down the needed Java Runtime files for the application to run.

The price of this software it's not worth for $39.95 at all, coz it's seriously lack of features. The author should consider lower down the price.

.  –  16 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+17)

Traducir

The first commenter writes it’s “straightforward and easy to use”, But later writes ”lacks proper documentation”,huh? Well if it’s “Straightforward and easy to use” how much explicit documentation is required? Next, “The program allows any user to “publish directly” then later, “lacks the ability to publish directly”. And rambles on and on only to lure someone into leaving GOTD because the GOTD Forum isn't good enough to post a full review and recommendation (unlike Whiterabbit who selflessly does)!

That so called "review" was done hurriedly and without putting in sufficient time to be fair to this Developer. The full version of this program was released at 3:00am. The first comment was posted at 3:01am based solely on the trial version. Since working with this program for several hours I found it delivers as advertised. The comment by #1 is no more than an exercise of a race to post first and serves as an excellent example of nitpicking. It’s my Recommendation that today’s GOTD be tried out because you just might find it as I did, to be a diamond in the rough. Thanks GOTD...

aRenegade  –  16 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+13)

Traducir

Installed and registered perfectly on Windows 7 Home Premium 32bit.

Overall it seems like a very nice program. Easy to use and attractive, albeit pretty simple, interface.
It would be nice if there were more player skins, but the one that comes packaged with it is very nice. This program is perfect for someone who wants a super simple way of putting a video on the Internet.

Not a half bad program & the price seems withing the range of acceptable. Thumbs up from me.

FLVMATE should come up with a more advanced version of this. I think they are on the right track so far. ; )

Casual Reviewer  –  16 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+8)

Traducir