|
Home > Archive > Macromedia Flash Server > December 2005 > Screensharing
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Bill Sanders 2005-12-17, 5:45 pm |
| Hello all,
So as not to hi-jack the Multicasting thread I started this one based
on a comment by Stefan. Let me hasten to add my support for Stefan's
view that screensharing is more important than multicasting for Adobe
to support as part of FMS2. I guess the issue would be to figure out
how to get it and not interfere with Breeze.
One of the low-end Breeze packages is $9,750--40 CC's at Educational
Pricing.
For entry level 'real business' apps, one pricing model is $375/mo
for 5 CCs.
Both of these pricing models make perfect sense for certain contexts.
Universities looking for distance learning solutions can re-coup any
costs incurred by the $10k price tag--at least for synchronous
learning, and I'm pretty sure that you can record Breeze meetings for
asynchronous presentations. Likewise, the cost of flying in 5 people
to a business meeting just once, more than justifies the $375 monthly
cost.
Having created both applications using FCS, I don't see withholding
screensharing as a way to improve (or keep) the market share that
Breeze has. Use of screensharing is most valuable in setting up
learning experiences for walking through learning how to use
software. Most of the other presentation material can be easily
handled with some type of PowerPoint presentation using shared objects.
One thing we've all learned from using FCS is that the applications
turned out to be a lot more creative than anyone expected. Were FCS
to have retained screensharing, the number and type of applications
would have been far greater.
With the current pricing model and "dumbed down" features, Adobe has
inherited a model of manufacturer competing with developers that
discourages the kind of robust development necessary for a product's
success. (Sort of like Adobe pricing Photoshop so that only Adobe
artists could use it profitably.)
Without a good financial motive for sticking around, spending a huge
amount of time learning FMS2 and investing an equally large amount of
time developing and testing new apps, Adobe's going to be looking at
an empty room of FMS2 developers. If competition with Breeze is a
major concern at Adobe, why not just dump FMS2 all together? Just
forget the developers and become a Service company as far as FMS2 is
concerned.
Bill
bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Fabio Sonnati 2005-12-17, 5:45 pm |
| I subscribe this petition
and I'd like to add that there
are other "dumbed down" or
lacking features that have crippled
FMS2:
1. lacking of improved realtime video compression built in FP8
2. lacking of any sort of nelly moser audio transcoder
Fabio Sonnati
http://flashvideo.progettosinergia.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Sanders" <wdsanders-Wuw85uim5zDR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>
To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:45 PM
Subject: [FlashComm] Screensharing
> Hello all,
>
> So as not to hi-jack the Multicasting thread I started this one based
> on a comment by Stefan. Let me hasten to add my support for Stefan's
> view that screensharing is more important than multicasting for Adobe
> to support as part of FMS2. I guess the issue would be to figure out
> how to get it and not interfere with Breeze.
>
> One of the low-end Breeze packages is $9,750--40 CC's at Educational
> Pricing.
>
> For entry level 'real business' apps, one pricing model is $375/mo
> for 5 CCs.
>
> Both of these pricing models make perfect sense for certain contexts.
> Universities looking for distance learning solutions can re-coup any
> costs incurred by the $10k price tag--at least for synchronous
> learning, and I'm pretty sure that you can record Breeze meetings for
> asynchronous presentations. Likewise, the cost of flying in 5 people
> to a business meeting just once, more than justifies the $375 monthly
> cost.
>
> Having created both applications using FCS, I don't see withholding
> screensharing as a way to improve (or keep) the market share that
> Breeze has. Use of screensharing is most valuable in setting up
> learning experiences for walking through learning how to use
> software. Most of the other presentation material can be easily
> handled with some type of PowerPoint presentation using shared objects.
>
> One thing we've all learned from using FCS is that the applications
> turned out to be a lot more creative than anyone expected. Were FCS
> to have retained screensharing, the number and type of applications
> would have been far greater.
>
> With the current pricing model and "dumbed down" features, Adobe has
> inherited a model of manufacturer competing with developers that
> discourages the kind of robust development necessary for a product's
> success. (Sort of like Adobe pricing Photoshop so that only Adobe
> artists could use it profitably.)
>
> Without a good financial motive for sticking around, spending a huge
> amount of time learning FMS2 and investing an equally large amount of
> time developing and testing new apps, Adobe's going to be looking at
> an empty room of FMS2 developers. If competition with Breeze is a
> major concern at Adobe, why not just dump FMS2 all together? Just
> forget the developers and become a Service company as far as FMS2 is
> concerned.
>
> Bill
>
>
> bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
>
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Marco Tabini 2005-12-17, 5:45 pm |
| On 17-Dec-05, at 8:45 AM, Bill Sanders wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> So as not to hi-jack the Multicasting thread I started this one
> based on a comment by Stefan. Let me hasten to add my support for
> Stefan's view that screensharing is more important than
> multicasting for Adobe to support as part of FMS2. I guess the
> issue would be to figure out how to get it and not interfere with
> Breeze.
>
There has to be more motivation behind the lack of built-in
screensharing capabilities than competition with Breeze--because even
on a moderate budget, it's not that difficult to build something very
close into an FMS2 application. Of course, it won't be as integrated,
meaning that the user will have to download an additional piece of
software, but it's definitely possible and there are apps out there
that do it. Therefore, it seems to me that this argument is a bit
weak--there's got to be more to it than that. It's also worth noting
that the screensharing codec _seems_ to be built into FMS2 (at least,
there's a screensharing.dll inside the modules\codecs directory in my
installation. This may suggest simply that MM--I mean, Adobe (boy,
this is going to take a while to get used to...)--is trying to figure
out how to actually license it.
What grates me is the lack of feedback from Adobe on this matter (at
least that I could find--I admit I'm relatively new to the whole
thing). Personally, I don't care if they have decided to remove this
feature because they don't want FMS2 to compete against Breeze--but I
would certainly appreciate some openness on the matter. Maybe it's
because I'm used to working in the OSS community, but this kind of
opaqueness is very frustrating, especially when one has to pay
significant money (well, at least it's significant to me) for a
product whose only advantage over competing *free* technologies is
the fact that it interoperates with Flash.
Marco
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Bill Sanders 2005-12-17, 5:45 pm |
| Marco,
That was my point. It's not that hard to build Breeze-like apps. (Did
you read it?) Moreover, adding screensharing would not detract from
Breeze but rather open up the possibilities for FMS2. Furthermore,
look at the new pricing for FMS2 and then look at the Breeze pricing.
If Adomedia isn't in competition w/ its developers why the pricing
and why not leave screensharing in as a functional part? If they are
concerned about developers competing with the Service aspect of their
company (which Breeze is), why not just take FMS2 off the market?
Then they won't have to put up with cranky developers and competition.
Bill
On Dec 17, 2005, at 9:42 AM, Marco Tabini wrote:
> There has to be more motivation behind the lack of built-in
> screensharing capabilities than competition with Breeze--because
> even on a moderate budget, it's not that difficult to build
> something very close into an FMS2 application. Of course, it won't
> be as integrated, meaning that the user will have to download an
> additional piece of software, but it's definitely possible and
> there are apps out there that do it. Therefore, it seems to me that
> this argument is a bit weak--there's got to be more to it than
> that. It's also worth noting that the screensharing codec _seems_
> to be built into FMS2 (at least, there's a screensharing.dll inside
> the modules\codecs directory in my installation. This may suggest
> simply that MM--I mean, Adobe (boy, this is going to take a while
> to get used to...)--is trying to figure out how to actually license
> it.
bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Clarke Bishop 2005-12-17, 5:45 pm |
| Over recent weeks, we have all experienced concern over FMS2 licensing. And,
we've even had a couple of heated exchanges between members of this list and
Macromedia, now Adobe employees.
We know that Adobe can make screensharing and other features work within the
Flash/FMS framework -- They do it with Breeze. And, it seems clear that
screensharing is one of our top feature requests! And, Adobe's response on
this is mostly silence!
It at least looks like Adobe has a conflict of interest or some other agenda
regarding screensharing! Given this, it's no wonder that promises around the
new license for FMS2 are met with skepticism.
I see the potential for Flash video and FMS, but it's hard for me to justify
committing my company's time and money to this platform -- There's just too
much Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Please, Adobe, address these underlying issues. Will screensharing EVER come
to FMS? Are you committed to your developers and to providing them a robust
platform or to being an application development company? Just tell us!
Clarke
-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Marco Tabini
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 9:42 AM
To: FlashComm Mailing List
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Screensharing
On 17-Dec-05, at 8:45 AM, Bill Sanders wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> So as not to hi-jack the Multicasting thread I started this one based
> on a comment by Stefan. Let me hasten to add my support for Stefan's
> view that screensharing is more important than multicasting for Adobe
> to support as part of FMS2. I guess the issue would be to figure out
> how to get it and not interfere with Breeze.
>
There has to be more motivation behind the lack of built-in screensharing
capabilities than competition with Breeze--because even on a moderate
budget, it's not that difficult to build something very close into an FMS2
application. Of course, it won't be as integrated, meaning that the user
will have to download an additional piece of software, but it's definitely
possible and there are apps out there that do it. Therefore, it seems to me
that this argument is a bit weak--there's got to be more to it than that.
It's also worth noting that the screensharing codec _seems_ to be built into
FMS2 (at least, there's a screensharing.dll inside the modules\codecs
directory in my installation. This may suggest simply that MM--I mean, Adobe
(boy, this is going to take a while to get used to...)--is trying to figure
out how to actually license it.
What grates me is the lack of feedback from Adobe on this matter (at least
that I could find--I admit I'm relatively new to the whole thing).
Personally, I don't care if they have decided to remove this feature because
they don't want FMS2 to compete against Breeze--but I would certainly
appreciate some openness on the matter. Maybe it's because I'm used to
working in the OSS community, but this kind of opaqueness is very
frustrating, especially when one has to pay significant money (well, at
least it's significant to me) for a product whose only advantage over
competing *free* technologies is the fact that it interoperates with Flash.
Marco
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Thijs Triemstra|Collab 2005-12-17, 5:45 pm |
| I just found this property in the Flex 2 alpha docs, anybody know why
this is in there? Haven't seen it before in FP, is it new? And does
it mean we will be able to create those 'screen broadcast
applications'? Because if it was a breeze only thing they wouldnt
have to document it for us..
flash.system.Capabilities
static
hasScreenBroadcast : Boolean [read-only]
SB: true if the player supports the development of screen broadcast
applications to be run through the Flash Communication Server;
otherwise it is false.
hasScreenPlayback : Boolean [read-only]
SP: true if the player supports the playback of screen broadcast
applications that are being run through the Flash Communication
Server; otherwise it is false
http://livedocs.macromedia.com/labs...f/flash/system/
Capabilities.html
Thijs
Op 17-dec-2005, om 16:18 heeft Clarke Bishop het volgende geschreven:
> Over recent weeks, we have all experienced concern over FMS2
> licensing. And,
> we've even had a couple of heated exchanges between members of this
> list and
> Macromedia, now Adobe employees.
>
> We know that Adobe can make screensharing and other features work
> within the
> Flash/FMS framework -- They do it with Breeze. And, it seems clear
> that
> screensharing is one of our top feature requests! And, Adobe's
> response on
> this is mostly silence!
>
> It at least looks like Adobe has a conflict of interest or some
> other agenda
> regarding screensharing! Given this, it's no wonder that promises
> around the
> new license for FMS2 are met with skepticism.
>
> I see the potential for Flash video and FMS, but it's hard for me
> to justify
> committing my company's time and money to this platform -- There's
> just too
> much Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
>
> Please, Adobe, address these underlying issues. Will screensharing
> EVER come
> to FMS? Are you committed to your developers and to providing them
> a robust
> platform or to being an application development company? Just tell us!
>
> Clarke
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
> [mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Marco
> Tabini
> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 9:42 AM
> To: FlashComm Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Screensharing
>
> On 17-Dec-05, at 8:45 AM, Bill Sanders wrote:
>
>
> There has to be more motivation behind the lack of built-in
> screensharing
> capabilities than competition with Breeze--because even on a moderate
> budget, it's not that difficult to build something very close into
> an FMS2
> application. Of course, it won't be as integrated, meaning that the
> user
> will have to download an additional piece of software, but it's
> definitely
> possible and there are apps out there that do it. Therefore, it
> seems to me
> that this argument is a bit weak--there's got to be more to it than
> that.
> It's also worth noting that the screensharing codec _seems_ to be
> built into
> FMS2 (at least, there's a screensharing.dll inside the modules\codecs
> directory in my installation. This may suggest simply that MM--I
> mean, Adobe
> (boy, this is going to take a while to get used to...)--is trying
> to figure
> out how to actually license it.
>
> What grates me is the lack of feedback from Adobe on this matter
> (at least
> that I could find--I admit I'm relatively new to the whole thing).
> Personally, I don't care if they have decided to remove this
> feature because
> they don't want FMS2 to compete against Breeze--but I would certainly
> appreciate some openness on the matter. Maybe it's because I'm used to
> working in the OSS community, but this kind of opaqueness is very
> frustrating, especially when one has to pay significant money
> (well, at
> least it's significant to me) for a product whose only advantage over
> competing *free* technologies is the fact that it interoperates
> with Flash.
>
>
> Marco
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
>
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| John Berzy 2005-12-17, 5:45 pm |
| Nope, those properties are available to us now. The packages have just
changed in as3
System.capabilities.hasScreenBroadcast
John
>From: Thijs Triemstra|Collab <thijs-r6XmE1ReyPhmR6Xm/wNWPw@public.gmane.org>
>Reply-To: FlashComm Mailing List <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
>To: FlashComm Mailing List <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
>Subject: Re: [FlashComm] Screensharing
>Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:47:05 +0100
>
>I just found this property in the Flex 2 alpha docs, anybody know why this
>is in there? Haven't seen it before in FP, is it new? And does it mean we
>will be able to create those 'screen broadcast applications'? Because if
>it was a breeze only thing they wouldnt have to document it for us..
>
>flash.system.Capabilities
>static
>hasScreenBroadcast : Boolean [read-only]
>SB: true if the player supports the development of screen broadcast
>applications to be run through the Flash Communication Server; otherwise
>it is false.
>
>hasScreenPlayback : Boolean [read-only]
>SP: true if the player supports the playback of screen broadcast
>applications that are being run through the Flash Communication Server;
>otherwise it is false
>
>http://livedocs.macromedia.com/labs...f/flash/system/
>Capabilities.html
>
>
>Thijs
>
>
>
>Op 17-dec-2005, om 16:18 heeft Clarke Bishop het volgende geschreven:
>
>
>
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
>=-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>To change your subscription options or search the archive:
>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
________________________________________
_________________________
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has
to offer.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca..._MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSNŽ Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
|
|
|
|
|