|
Home > Archive > Macromedia Flash Server > August 2005 > What FlashCom features do you want inafutureversionof
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]
| Author |
What FlashCom features do you want inafutureversionof
|
|
| Mark Christiani 2005-08-25, 2:45 am |
| Hi Aaron,
I totally agree with you but putting on Macro Media's hat for a second I'll
answer for them. Software pricing is tending towards the 'value based'
model. You pay for the value you are getting out of the tool. If you use
more bandwidth you are getting more 'value' so should pay more.
Oracle and MS charge per user for databases and dev tools. There is no more
software loaded on a server if you use 1 or a 1,000 database users!
I don't agree with this model for streaming but I'm sure that is their
thinking.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of II Site Design
Gmail
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:12 PM
To: FlashComm Mailing List
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [FlashComm] What FlashCom features do you want
inafutureversionof Flash?
How about just lifting the bandwidth limit altogether...?
I'm not making an uninformed statement. No, I mean NO other streaming server
application that I know of limits license holders to some specified limit of
bandwidth. That is outrageous! In fact, it's almost unethical. Why? Because
Macromedia is not my bandwidth provider. Therefore, it seams hardly legal
that they could make money off of how much bandwidth I use.
I know I take a risk of sounding like an alarmist, but I am surprised that
this poor licensing decision on Macromedia's part has not greatly
compromised their customer loyalty and jeopardized their perceived
integrity. I guess that is the result of two things: (1) Their has not been
a good enough competitor for customers to switch to and (2) Macromedia
really seams to discourage people from developing their own FCS applications
and refers them to their partner CDN's instead.
The bottom line: This poor licensing is limiting the full potential of FCS
applications and it is forcing developers to seek other options when they
are made available. Personally, I hope Macromedia changes their license to
lift the bandwidth limit. Otherwise, I really hope that this German based
application (CVS from www.onlinelib.de) is as good as they claim so that I
can make a switch as fast as I can!
-Aaron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Lord" <slord-1+jUDDTtyItWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] What FlashCom features do you want in
afutureversionof Flash?
> I'd like to add a nutty suggestion, it's a little over the top but if
> we're all just spitting in the wind, I might as well also...
>
> Seeing as how some people are hung up on the bandwidth issue, and trading
> serial numbers isn't a real honest option, so I propose the following...
>
> ( Mind you this *idea* would really only be valuable between people that
> trust each other, but I digress...)
>
> What if the admin server could somehow communicate with another admin
> server located *wherever* to find out how much bandwidth that server is
> *not* using in order to boost it's own BW limit when it needs to. For
> instance, say Brian or Stefan are giving a presentation in a week and
> they are tight for BW so I give them my IP and a password (I enter their
> IP and the same password in my admin). Their admin server can now call
> my admin server too see what I'm *not* using in terms of FCS BW so it can
> boost its own.
>
> Any bandwidth cost would be incurred by Brian or Stefan because *their*
> FCS was temporarily boosted in bandwidth by the amount I wasn't using (my
> FCS would be crippled by the amount *leant* to the other FCS
> license(s)) - it's not actually directing streams to *my* server. And I
> don't see how it could even be used as a crude form of load balancing so
> it's of no real threat to large outfits or even MM.
>
> But it does allow the little people to share resources for a short amount
> of time while at the same time keeping people honest. If several people
> on this list traded IP's it would mean they *potentially* had access to a
> 70MB BW cap for a presentation.
>
> I personally own a Pro license that uses 2% of my 2 Terabyte monthly BW
> cap. So I could potentially be helping people on the list through a
> tight spot quite easily if we had the means to do so.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:04 PM, MHarris-vppm1TVqICB/8ZyCq/8wuYdd74u8MsAO@public.gmane.org wrote:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> 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
| |
| Simon Lord 2005-08-25, 2:45 am |
| Right, and be careful what you ask for. If they lift the BW limit
they may charge PER CPU or some per user/per cpu combo nightmare.
It's always going to be *something* so why not accept this?
If you can't love the one you want, love the one you're with. And so
in that spirit I thought my suggestion was simple without getting all
juiced up about BW.
> No, I mean NO other streaming server application that I know of
> limits license holders to some specified limit of bandwidth.
It's safe to say that FCS is *more* than JUST a streaming server. I
mean common, really, I can download the Quicktime or Real streaming
servers *right now WITH source code* and start pumping out streams
for free but there is ZERO interaction, no shared objects, no
actionscript (or script of any kind).
This argument is moot - it's simply *not* an apples to apples
comparison.
What you really want is an FLV streaming server with no AS or SO's or
any form of interactivity with the data or individuals whatsoever.
Unfortunately MM doesn't offer this product yet, and why would they?
If Apple, Real and MS are giving their servers out for free then
what's the point? Where's the money is this? They are giving their
steaming servers out for free to make their respective formats
ubiquitous, it's a war out there for streaming standards.
MM is probably too small to be playing these games (or simply not
interested), maybe when Adobe shows up they'll offer some super
scaled back version of FCS that only streams recorded FLV's.
For the hell of it, here's the link to Apples FREE streaming server
SOURCE CODE. Runs on Mac, Windows, Linux and Solaris.
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/streaming/
Apple offers a more commercial Quicktime streaming server which is
BUNDLED for FREE with OSX Server ($999 for unlimited users). It
comes with Quicktime Broadcaster for live events as well (info on QTB
is near the end of the doc).
http://images.apple.com/server/pdfs...ng_TB_v10.4.pdf
It also comes bundled with an iChat/Jabber/Blog server to host the
events from the server.
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/...onservices.html
But even with all this, I can't even compare it to FCS. It's just
NOT the same thing.
On Aug 24, 2005, at 10:08 PM, Mark Christiani wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> I totally agree with you but putting on Macro Media's hat for a
> second I'll
> answer for them. Software pricing is tending towards the 'value based'
> model. You pay for the value you are getting out of the tool. If
> you use
> more bandwidth you are getting more 'value' so should pay more.
>
> Oracle and MS charge per user for databases and dev tools. There is
> no more
> software loaded on a server if you use 1 or a 1,000 database users!
>
> I don't agree with this model for streaming but I'm sure that is their
> thinking.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
> [mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of II
> Site Design
> Gmail
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:12 PM
> To: FlashComm Mailing List
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [FlashComm] What FlashCom features do you want
> inafutureversionof Flash?
>
> How about just lifting the bandwidth limit altogether...?
>
> I'm not making an uninformed statement. No, I mean NO other
> streaming server
>
> application that I know of limits license holders to some specified
> limit of
>
> bandwidth. That is outrageous! In fact, it's almost unethical. Why?
> Because
> Macromedia is not my bandwidth provider. Therefore, it seams hardly
> legal
> that they could make money off of how much bandwidth I use.
>
> I know I take a risk of sounding like an alarmist, but I am
> surprised that
> this poor licensing decision on Macromedia's part has not greatly
> compromised their customer loyalty and jeopardized their perceived
> integrity. I guess that is the result of two things: (1) Their has
> not been
> a good enough competitor for customers to switch to and (2) Macromedia
> really seams to discourage people from developing their own FCS
> applications
>
> and refers them to their partner CDN's instead.
>
> The bottom line: This poor licensing is limiting the full potential
> of FCS
> applications and it is forcing developers to seek other options
> when they
> are made available. Personally, I hope Macromedia changes their
> license to
> lift the bandwidth limit. Otherwise, I really hope that this German
> based
> application (CVS from www.onlinelib.de) is as good as they claim so
> that I
> can make a switch as fast as I can!
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Lord" <slord-1+jUDDTtyItWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
> To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [FlashComm] What FlashCom features do you want in
> afutureversionof Flash?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> 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
| |
| Kevin Day 2005-08-25, 2:45 am |
|
On Aug 25, 2005, at 12:32 AM, Simon Lord wrote:
>
> It's safe to say that FCS is *more* than JUST a streaming server.
> I mean common, really, I can download the Quicktime or Real
> streaming servers *right now WITH source code* and start pumping
> out streams for free but there is ZERO interaction, no shared
> objects, no actionscript (or script of any kind).
>
> This argument is moot - it's simply *not* an apples to apples
> comparison.
>
> What you really want is an FLV streaming server with no AS or SO's
> or any form of interactivity with the data or individuals
> whatsoever. Unfortunately MM doesn't offer this product yet, and
> why would they? If Apple, Real and MS are giving their servers out
> for free then what's the point? Where's the money is this? They
> are giving their steaming servers out for free to make their
> respective formats ubiquitous, it's a war out there for streaming
> standards.
>
Before we deployed anything, we looked heavily at Real, QuickTime,
WMP, and every minor player out there.
Here's the comparison we came up with:
Real's Helix server is completely free
Real's commercial Helix Unlimited (perpetual license) server is $8999
retail.
Real's commercial Helix Universal Unlimited (perpetual license) is
around $12000.
Quicktime Server is free with an XServe. I could buy a brand new
XServe and get an unlimited perpetual license + OS + new hardware for
$3995.
Windows Media Server is just a license for Windows Server 2003
Standard, which is around $700, and includes an OS.
Assuming we want to push as much bandwidth as we feel like it (we
can't plan for sudden peaks, and we want to send high quality
streams) - which also makes the comparisons to the above products
more equal, for one year we have to pay:
$4500 for the base server
$27996 for 1 year of unlimited bandwidth ($6999 for an 90 unlimited
capacity pack x 4)
To make matters worse, what we were able to accomplish on one server
(Dual 3.06Ghz Xeon for WMP and Real, Dual 2Ghz G5 for Quicktime)
required two servers with FCS because of increased CPU and memory
utilization.
When spread over a 3 year period (how long we'd estimate most of our
projects to last):
Real: $12,000 (worst case)
Quicktime: $3,995 (Plus we get a free server and free OS)
Windows: $700 (Plus we get a free OS)
Flash: $176,876 ( 2x $88488)
On top of that, a 128k stream using the latest QuickTime, Real or WMP
codec is approximately equal to the best you can squeeze out of Flash
at 256k, so our bandwidth costs also double.
This is why so many of us are complaining about the license, Simon.
It's even worse when you're looking at Real and Quicktime's free
offerings. Do you honestly think AS and SO are worth $164k+? 
> It's safe to say that FCS is *more* than JUST a streaming server.
> I mean common, really, I can download the Quicktime or Real
> streaming servers *right now WITH source code* and start pumping
> out streams for free but there is ZERO interaction, no shared
> objects, no actionscript (or script of any kind).
>
> This argument is moot - it's simply *not* an apples to apples
> comparison.
>
> What you really want is an FLV streaming server with no AS or SO's
> or any form of interactivity with the data or individuals
> whatsoever. Unfortunately MM doesn't offer this product yet, and
> why would they? If Apple, Real and MS are giving their servers out
> for free then what's the point? Where's the money is this? They
> are giving their steaming servers out for free to make their
> respective formats ubiquitous, it's a war out there for streaming
> standards.
AS is nice. BUT, QuickTime has hooks for AppleScript and C modules.
Real/Helix has the full source and there are lots of plug-ins that
the community has developed, or you can write your own. Windows Media
has .NET integration, as well as VB interfaces. AS isn't a bad
language, but I really don't think it's being used in a way that
works well for server-side logic. We've developed applications on all
of them, I don't really find what FCS has to offer any different.
Shared Objects are interesting, but only proprietary to Flash because
Macromedia chooses to make them so. The same code can be implemented
with XML Sockets and any application server back end.
I mean no disrespect to the engineers at Macromedia who spend their
time here, but: The whole FCS product is nice, but not nearly worth
the price they're charging. I don't mind paying them for the product,
but when you're running up against "Free" and "comes with your
server", you can't price yourself out of most company's price range.
If we could buy unlimited perpetual per-server licenses for... even
matching the highest other price I have up there, we'd buy them by
the dozen. As it is now, we tried one project with it, found it
usable, but way more expensive than practical.
I think Macromedia/Adobe needs to get on the "We'd like some money
rather than none" bandwagon.
=-----------------------------------------------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|