From what I have investigated to date, Avot's core strength (and difference from those such as Divx) is that their technology benefits are largely on the content provider side, meaning that the substantial content already existing at sites of the likes of YouTube and others will not require Avot to devote resources to the transcoding and storage of the content prior to requests from users for that content. Instead, the transcoding is performed at the existing content providers' end in an on-demand manner, as requested by the user, also aleviating these content providers from the need to expend effort and consume additional storage for multiple format and bit rate versions of the existing content at their end.

As for the video library, again, my understanding is that Avot's approach is not to creat a library of the actual content (a resource-intensive and obviously redundant process due the content already existing at other sites), but rather to create a dynamic, interactive directory of the content that already exists in libraries at locations other than theirs, allowing the user to navigate to the desired content through Avot's directory search service. Divx, as I understand it, is offering a library of actual content to be delivered directly from their repository, which necessitates the need for Divx to also provide and manage the content library storage array.

DG