JamieG Analysis

Recently Adobe released  “Flash Media Rights Management Server“. More details have come to light, and unfortunately it is not good.

Follow this link for a good overview of the latest development in the Flash DRM.

Unfortunately Adobe appears to have lost the plot here.  The details regarding FMRMS are a strange departure from what appeared to be insightful business model.  The two main points that make Adobes push into DRM a large stumble for the company is as follows.

Firstly the $40,000 price.  I actually find this hard to believe.  Microsoft, for example, with Silverlight is actually giving FREE streaming services to help adopt its product.  The initial impression I was given by Adobe was that they planned the DRM to be just another feature introduced into FMS3 which has a reasonable price now. (It use to be an unrealistic price too and has recently had large price reductions) This made sense to me as serving video these days is as simple as putting it on a http server.  Everyone is doing it.  Especially, as many prominent digital media pundits imply, that content is likely to evolve to a type of free (see THIS post) distribution model.

This price makes this product only applicable to large companies like distribution companies and TV stations/networks.  Still, the future tends towards more direct models and less control from gatekeeper organisations is evident and evolving.  If this product was more like $1000 per server, that would have been a big evolutionary step.  Even if DRM is not the ultimate future. DRM is the security blanket used by the content production industry.

The other big fault in Flash DRM is that to utilise the DRM system, you will need to implement an AIR application using the AIR runtime.  Ie you need the user to install the 40meg AIR runtime.  It does not leverage of the 98% flash install base. It is not a simply point browser at site and go implementation.  Flash Media Player (FMP) will be a great product and has some good advantages over a typical web experience, however, this is a major fault in the implementation.  There is no reason that the Flash9 player in itself, could not implement the require details for progressive download on Web pages with 128bit encryption.

Flash Media Server 3 does implement STREAMING based encryption, but any form of progressive download cannot be done.  For example, youtube does progressive download from a HTTP server.  These VIDEO files can, if you don’t have the bandwidth, be cached.  Ie wait a while and the file trickles down.  You can still view the file.  Or if you return to the Video later, it is still in your cache and does not require downloading again.   This type of functionality is not possible with FMS3.  As an independent producer who may want to direct distribute content on a limited (cheap) server setup, there is no real way to do this effectively.  Unless you sign up with pricey CDN (Content Distribution Network) etc.

Don’t get me wrong, as a DRM implementation, FMP and FMRMS looks like a suitable if not best available solution for those organisations like, for example, the BBC doing the iPlayer or the ABC NOW (Australia) or even HULU.   By the looks of the price tag, Adobe does not expect much opportunity outside these potential clients.

To compare apple with apples, Microsoft does offer many of the features Adobe DRM will offer.  SilverLight and its functionality with Microsoft DRM is not something I am completely up to date with.  Silverlight is so new and being developed at an astonishing rate.  At the price Adobe is offering, Microsoft’s offering looks like it deserves a good look.  Microsoft price for its Media server, last time I looked, as not that bad.  It is the way that it was implemented into the browser that faded it into obscurity.  Silverlight may put the spotlight back on it in a big way.

In the long run, however, I do not see this hugely expensive pricing model for FMRMS to be a successful business decision for Adobe.  If you look at historical sales models like this one from Adobe/Macromedia in the past, for example, what is now Live Cycle Data Services for flash was viewed as a enterprise only product and also had a $30,000-40,000 price tag.  This model/price stoped any uptake by the general web community and gave open source AJAX the leverage to completely squash the potential of “Remoting” and other technology these products gave Flash. Only now is Adobe realising this mistake and have now made most of the functionality that was once mega dollars to purchase, open source with BlaseDS.  This, to me, is the same mistake again.

DRM is not about stopping piracy.  There is always a way to pirate content if not ultimately via the analog hole.  DRM is more about the wire fence with “Do not trespass” on it.  It is easy to jump the fence, but generally people will do what they are suppose to, especially if they can go to the gate and pay a reasonable price to get past the fence.

The ability to offer simplistic DRM incentives should not be kept to those who can control the standards.  Apple, (The standard personal music player)  Microsoft, XBOX, etc.  It should be an open system and integrated into the standard HTTP server we all use today.  Just like browser security is today.