Dynamo

All -

I see (at least) two issues here:

1 - Anger/frustration/confusion about why the Personal Edition is gone
2 - Anger/frustration/confusion about how the licensing parameters
changed so drastically from FCS 1.5 to FMS 2.

I will discuss the "Personal Edition" issues in a follow up email. I
would like to speak about the second point - licensing parameters - with
an overview of the next FMS release.

The FMS team has spent the past 3 months working on a project called
Dynamo.

The purpose of Dynamo is to introduce a more flexible licensing model
which will allow individual developers to have more choice over how
their FMS installs are licensed.

Dynamo expands on the concept of license files that existed in FMS 2.
The FMS 2 core server bits have default license parameters. When you
download the bits from MM.com, the FMS server functions as a Developer
Edition - 10 connections, unlimited bandwidth. When you install a valid
Serial Key through the FMS Admin Panel, it unlocks the server to operate
at the Base Config for that Edition. The Base Config for FMS
Professional is 100 Connections/Unlimiited Bandwidth/3 Vhosts.

In Dynamo, we are making public a new set of "License Profiles". This
concept has been discussed on this list, but as a quick overview, they
essentially extend the abilities of the server Base Config.=20

Dynamo will have 3 license profiles to choose from:

1) 150 Connections/Unlimited bandwidth/unlimited vhosts
2) 1000 Connections/40 Mbps / unlimited vhosts
3) 2500 Connections/ 25 Mbps / unlimited vhosts

IMPORTANT POINTS
- Dynamo is officially FMS Version 2.0.1 and is a FREE update to FMS 2
- These profiles are FREE
- You can only use one profile at a time. However, you can change them
at any time, simply by modifying one line in your server config files (I
think it's in FMS.ini)
- You can stack profiles of the same type; however you cannot
cross-stack (i.e. get 2500 connections and unlimited bandwidth)
- Profiles only work with valid FMS Serial Keys (i.e. you must purchase
the FMS software from Adobe).
- The purchase price of FMS has not changed - $4500 for the Professional
Edition. Dynamo will hopefully let you get more of what you need for
that price.

Dynamo went to private Beta today, and should be released in the (very)
near future. For those who have downloaded the 90-day Interim licenses,
Dynamo will be released publicly well before the license expires.

As Ed mentioned, Dynamo also contains a number of bug fixes and
stability improvements. The FMS dev team has spent many late nights
working to make FMS more stable, reliable, and an overall better
product. I would like to thank them for being really, really good at
what they do.

ALSO
I have just started up an FMS blog: http://blogs.adobe.com/fms/

Please feel free to drop by and leave comments - I'll post an open
thread for licensing discussion. One note of caution - our Movable Type
install requires comment approval, so the first comment you leave may
take a few minutes (or more) to show up, as I manually approve. Once a
comment is approved, you should be able to comment freely with that same
user info.

As I mentioned at the start, I will address the Personal Edition
issues/questions in a follow up thread. If you could keep replies to
this thread on-topic to Dynamo, it will be easier to aggregate and
process feedback. Just a suggestion.=20

Thanks for reading.

-steve.

steve wolkoff
product manager, flash media server
adobe systems
swolkoff-dv/VyGpifdQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org

-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.
org] On Behalf Of Woody
Chastain
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:31 AM
To: 'FlashComm Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [FlashComm] sometimes it makes me angry - licensing rant

Adobe must prove that they are reliable and ethical.

Anyone who has worked with software development over the last two
decades
has seen serious discontinuities: Major breaks in the way software is
developed and delivered, such as moving from text-based interface to
graphical user interface, or moving from procedural to object-oriented
programming. Discontinuities are expensive. Learning curves are steep,
software must be re-designed and re-coded. Businesses can fail as a
result
of these discontinuities. Most discontinuities are caused by
technological
change.

My point, in relation to FMS2, is that MM/Adobe has contrived, perhaps
inadvertently, a serious discontinuity for developers who invested in
the
FCS1.5 licensing structure. Developers are angry because they know that
this
is an expensive discontinuity for them. For Adobe, who now owns FMS2,
licensing is now a Return-On-Investment decision.

The national and international business environment revolves on ROI
decisions. This environment also revolves on trust, and in the
blogosphere,
everything gets revealed. If I, and others, conclude that Adobe is an
unreliable and unethical provider of development tools, then we will not
forget. Adobe needs a clear recognition that this licensing decision is
also
a business ethics decision that will affect how we developers perceive
them
in their coming battle with the new Microsoft tools.=20

Woody

-----Original Message-----
From: flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org
[mailto:flashcomm-bounces-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.
org] On Behalf Of Marco
Tabini
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:52 AM
To: FlashComm Mailing List
Subject: Re: [FlashComm] sometimes it makes me angry - licensing rant

On 25-Jan-06, at 12:00 PM, Edward Chan wrote:

> Sorry, I didn't read every email on this thread, and I'm just replying
> to the last one.  But are we ranting about licensing again because the
> new licensing model that Steve and Chris worked on and proposed is =20
> still
> not good enough?

I think the majority of the malcontent comes from the fact that the =20
licensing work seems to be completely rudderless and out of touch =20
with reality as seen from the outside (at least as my clients and I =20
seem to see it).

You have to appreciate that making a business case for FMS in the =20
small- to medium-size enterprise is already very difficult when a =20
client looks at the feature set, and that the new licensing model has =20
made this even more difficult in a whole new way: new deployments =20
don't want to waste money on an FCS license and prefer to wait for an =20
FMS2 license--which, however, is being very slow in coming and, while =20
we've seen reassurances that the problem is being taken care of, =20
there have been no official notices for a while now. My interim =20
license expires very soon and I'm beginning to get some really =20
uncomfortable questions from my partners who have begun questioning =20
whether the $4,500 investment was a good call. Like most =20
businesspeople, I don't like being uncomfortable, and now I find =20
myself having to hold off on further investment in our FMS-based =20
software until I know that it will make sense for us to spend more =20
money on it in the longer term.

Thus, a seemingly simple problem is causing a lot of heartburn to a =20
lot of people; in my case, FMS is a peripheral portion of my business =20
at best--I can very easily do without it, although I prefer some of =20
its convenience. I can only imagine how upset those whose entire =20
business depends on this platform must be.

As an aside, this is a simple symptom of a much larger malaise with =20
FCS and FMS. Adomedia is obviously trying to position FMS in a market =20
that doesn't sit well with a lot of people on this list. Your PR =20
department can put all the spin they want on it, but it's obvious =20
that FMS has been castrated so that you can give the developer =20
community just slightly less than what they need to compete against =20
Breeze. That's fine--it's your prerogative to decide what to do with =20
your products, but it looks like a very bad move for the medium- to =20
long-term. It's inevitable that sooner or later the features of both =20
FMS and Breeze will be commoditized, just like the feature of pretty =20
much every other software package are going to be. The problem that =20
Adobe doesn't seem to realize is that the short-sightedness of their =20
licensing policies will cause the commoditization to take place =20
outside of their sphere of influence, to the point where they will =20
eventually lose control over the platform.

I know many don't think that's possible because Adobe controls Flash. =20
However, this kind of control is impossible to exercise in the long =20
run, and unlike Postscript, Flash is not the de-facto standard of a =20
slow-moving industry like the printing world. If Adobe doesn't open =20
it up--for real, and not just so that it looks good in a press =20
release--it will, sooner or later, buckle under the pressure of =20
external events that are outside of Adobe's control. If this weren't =20
case, Microsoft wouldn't be working on Spark. But then again, who am =20
I to tell Adobe what to do? :-)

Sorry for this rant. It came out a long longer than I intended it to.

Cheers,

Marco

=3D-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=3D-----------------------------------------------------------

To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm

=3D-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=3D-----------------------------------------------------------

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