Lets study the “Thoughts about Flash”

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are
only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole
authority as to their future enhancement, pricing,
etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely
available, this does not mean they are open, since
they are controlled entirely by Adobe and
available only from Adobe. By almost any definition,
Flash is a closed system.

Let’s get this straight.  Neither Apple iTechnology or Adobe Flash are OPEN.  They both use open and freely available standards. They both use proprietary standards such as H.264.  Steve Jobs claiming that Apple iTechnology is Open is a subjective point.  But let’s look it from another angle.

Free is usually associated with Open.  To use any of Apple’s iTechnology you have to purchase their hardware and be a registered($) developer to run software on them.  For Flash, you can use any computer using any operating system, obtain the Flash player for free, then download the open source compiler.  This is all free and Open, however the Player is closed source. (Or you could use the open source Flash Player called Ganash).

So comparing both, I can use Adobe flash technology and build workable results without paying Adobe a cent. I have access to all the source for the tools that make the swf files. Not so with Apple.  So who is more open again?

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though
the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad
is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards
pertaining to the web should be open. Rather
than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and
JavaScript – all open standards.

The issue here is not the openness of the web, but
the tools and costs to get you to this open web.  For
Apple you have to purchase expensive iTenchnology.
For Adobe, you get a free Flash Player.

Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power
implementations of these open standards. HTML5,
the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple,
Google and many others, lets web developers
create advanced graphics, typography, animations and
transitions without relying on third party
browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely
open and controlled by a standards committee,
of which Apple is a member.

Has anyone bothered to tell Steve that HTML5 is a “developing standard” and is not slated to be completely ratified until 2012?   HTML5 is by no means a technology we should be putting out there on a large scale yet as the standard is likely to change.   Every time it does, every website using the current Draft and prototype example implementation will have to change their code to suit.  Any web developer pushing hard into this now is being foolish at best. Potential Darwin awards member of the web community at worst.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

The full web, to me, would mean the most common technologies, Open or otherwise. But let’s keep reading..

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile
devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of
video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is
that almost all this video is also available in a more
modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones,
iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of
the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all
Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps
the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience
ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook,
ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time,
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports
Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many,
many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t
missing much video.

Ok, let’s be specific here.  Flash, way back since Flash Player 9 Update 3, released on December 3, 2007, Flash has been able to play back any standards based MP4 container with H.264 and AAC video, all the way up to HD 1080.  (HD performance subject to Hardware acceleration, ie not on Mac).  Since then, any Video website would have likely switched over to H.264 media files. (Better utilisation of bandwidth  $$$)  Meaning EVERY website would be using them now.  Moving a Flash based Video site to the <video> tag would only take days of development. (No transcoding needed)

Flash has never claimed to be a video container.  It is what has made flash so popular, but that is not its core purpose.  So, cool, Adobe was actually not that bothered, IMHO, about this.   The <Video> tag has its purposes.  But then again Video in flash also has its purposes too.  Both will do some video interfaces better then the other. It depends on the application.  The <video> tag will in general do for 95% of what the web needs.  Adobe has never disputed that.  They have only tried to make it more innovative to keep it as relevant as possible.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices
cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately,
there are over 50,000 games and entertainment
titles on the App Store, and many of them are free.
There are more games and entertainment titles
available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any
other platform in the world.

This is obviously a comparison between thousands of free flash games and thousands of $ games on the iTechnology platform.  It is a blatant admission by Steve Jobs that Apple would rather you pay for Games from the store and they get 30%.  And really, why the hell not.  Apple made these wonderful iTechnology products.

Steve, please come clean and do not make up false accusations and mislead consumers.  That’s bad form.  This is the core of why this fight is so high profile IMHO.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

This is where it gets good. Steve has a point here, but chooses to leave out a lot of detail.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having
one of the worst security records in 2009.
We also know first hand that Flash is the
number one reason Macs crash. We have
been working with Adobe to fix these problems,
but they have persisted for several years now.
We don’t want to reduce the reliability and
security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by
adding Flash.

Here Apple starts pointing the finger. Yes Adobe has security flaws. But so does your OSX and iTechnologes.  If Apple was so perfect, why can’t they stop the jail breakers?  How come they send out security patches on a regular basis?  Apple is also known for being one of the slackest when it comes to security fixes.

Yes, Flash has had some security issues, but like all complex tools, no more than its fair share.  Apple, you are just as guilty.  Again bad form Steve.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on
mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to
show us Flash performing well on a mobile device,
any mobile device, for a few years now. We have
never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would
ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the
second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010,
and now they say the second half of 2010. We
think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we
didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will
perform?

Lets look at the facts.  There are over 200 apps on the AppStore known to be made from the FlashCS5 tool set. (Probably more but developers are not willing to say.. for good reason as Steve will probably kick them off)  These Apps passed the TEST to go onto the Apps store.  One would expect the test involves looking at performance issues.  One would expect Steve has likely looked at these apps as there are Blogs and articles all over the Web about them.  So are we supposed to believe that Steve has simply not bothered to have a look at them?  The statement above is obviously misleading.

Fourth, there’s battery life.
To achieve long battery life when playing
video, mobile devices must decode the video
in hardware; decoding it in software uses too
much power. Many of the chips used in modern
mobile devices contain a decoder called
H.264 – an industry standard that is used in
every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted
by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and
many other companies.

I recommend you have a look at “HTML5 versus Flash: Animation Benchmarking” (See video explanationComparison of performance of Flash Player 10.1 and HTML 5 on Mobile Devices) in which Flash is 200-500% more efficient then HTML5 running on webkit on an android phone.  Meaning it would use less power then HTML5.  Ie, Steve Jobs’ suggestion that HTML5 has better performance is misleading and obviously not true.

Although Flash has recently added support for
H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites
currently requires an older generation decoder
that is not implemented in mobile chips and
must be run in software. The difference is
striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264
videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos
decoded in software play for less than 5 hours
before the battery is fully drained.

This is really good spin. Steve is right in that the very OLD version of flash before 2007 (3 years in internet time is a VERY LONG TIME), version 9, did use a CPU based codec.  But as stated above, H.264 is now the standard and all sites using flash are now using the same H.264 files in flash as is compatible with the Hardware accelerated decoders.  As such, Flash 10.1 is as efficient as it can possibly be on these mobile devices.  Steve implies Flash cannot do H.264 Hardware acceleration, which is again deceptive and untrue.

But lets get into the OSX story here.  Apple like to blame Adobe for the poor video performance on OSX.  Unfortunately, again, Steve has failed to supply the full story.  The reason Flash on OSX is so slow and buggy is as follows.

1. Video: Apple has refused to, until recently, supply the API required to implement it.  Flash 10.1 for OSX will have Hardware acceleration as, the API has only just been made available.  Steve conveniently failed to mention this. (See Adobe will accelerate Flash video using new Apple API)

2. General flash animation performance: Again, this is because those APIs available for rendering animated content on a web browser are old and not suitable.  Adobe has been waiting for better and supported APIs to become available.  Again, only recently because of the advent of HTML5 in the browser has Adobe now been able to implement Core Animation for use in Flash Player 10.1  The FlashPlayer development team say OSX flash player is likely to be even more efficient then the Windows version.

Looking at the facts, we can see it is Apple and not Adobe that is responsible for a lot the the problems Steve likes to blame Adobe for.  This, however, does not really make up for the stated CRASH level of Flash on OSX.  I personally have not had a lot of problems.  And this crash issue is likely more to do with authoring issues than the player itself.  Still, it’s an easy mark, and why has Adobe let it become such an issue?  I would say, simply because Apple has shown little interest in helping Adobe make a reliable and efficient Flash Player and as such, Adobe has shown little interest in fixing these issues.  A tool like Flash Player is only as strong as the foundations they sit on.  FlashPlayer OSX sits on the OSX API’s and as such, Apple, by definition and by action is partly responsible.

When websites re-encode their videos using
H.264, they can offer them without using
Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers
like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome
without any plugins whatsoever, and look
great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

This sentence is obviously misleading as it’s a non-issue. As mentioned above, Flash Video migrated to H.264 over 3 years ago.

Fifth, there’s Touch.
Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not
for touch screens using fingers. For example,
many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”,
which pop up menus or other elements when
the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot.
Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface
doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept
of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to
be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
If developers need to rewrite their Flash
websites, why not use modern technologies
like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it
would not solve the problem that most Flash
websites need to be rewritten to support
touch-based devices.

This is a very good example of misdirection.  HTML/CSS sites are just as likely to use roll overs as Flash is.  And like HTML and the use of it in the Javascript apps for the iPhone, flash is just as usable in an interface designed in flash.  Flash 10.1 also support multi touch and pinch.

Sixth, the most important reason.
Besides the fact that Flash is closed and
proprietary, has major technical drawbacks,
and doesn’t support touch based devices,
there is an even more important reason we
do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and
iPads. We have discussed the downsides of
using Flash to play video and interactive
content from websites, but Adobe also
wants developers to adopt Flash to create
apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting
a third party layer of software come between
the platform and the developer ultimately
results in sub-standard apps and hinders the
enhancement and progress of the platform. If
developers grow dependent on third party
development libraries and tools, they can only
take advantage of platform enhancements if
and when the third party chooses to adopt the
new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a
third party deciding if and when they will make
our enhancements available to our developers.

There is some truth to this but, like all tools, you use the right tool for the right job.  If I am writing a Game, best to use the most low level code using the highest possible performance API’s available.  But if writing a simply end user App in that people read, input and view data.  This is completely WRONG.

The performance hit of cross platform tools that build tools for input and viewing of data (Anything but games mostly)  have little performance differences.  They save the developer massive amounts of money.  This is why cross development tools are so popular and expensive.  They are very important development tools that can make the difference between a tool being worth while doing or not.

This is a obvious attempt to lock in the developers and to get them to invest money into the closed Apple platforms.  As the more Apple can get them invested, the more power Apple can bring over them.

As a developer, Steve, you turn my stomach.  But at the same time, if that is where the money is, that is where the developer will go, even if he is selling his soul to make his living.

This becomes even worse if the third party is
supplying a cross platform development tool.
The third party may not adopt enhancements
from one platform unless they are available on
all of their supported platforms. Hence
developers only have access to the lowest
common denominator set of features. Again,
we cannot accept an outcome where developers
are blocked from using our innovations and
enhancements because they are not available on
our competitor’s platforms.

This goes both ways Steve.  But obviously in your mind, Apple is the only company that can “Inovate”.  My stomach turns over again.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is
not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the
best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal
to help developers write cross platform apps.
And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt
enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For
example, although Mac OS X has been shipping
for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it
fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped
CS5. Adobe was the last major third party
developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

“It is their(Adobe)  goal to help developers write cross platform” Yes exactly. As a developer, that is exactly what I want.  HTML5/ Object C, they are all just more languages.  We have so many languages because like having a tools box full of many different tools, Hammer, screw driver, spanner, we use the right tool for the Job.  Imagine a tool box with only a Hammer in it.  That is what Steve is trying to justify here.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide
the most advanced and innovative platform to
our developers, and we want them to stand
directly on the shoulders of this platform and
create the best apps the world has ever seen.
We want to continually enhance the platform so
developers can create even more amazing,
powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone
wins – we sell more devices because we have
the best apps, developers reach a wider and
wider audience and customer base, and users
are continually delighted by the best and broadest
selection of apps on any platform.

What a great company statement.  The only problem is that, there is no reason why Flash Player could not be part of that statement apart from the deceptions mentioned above and the business model that places Adobe as a threat.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice.

The C programming language is one of the earliest languages created. Even today it is one of the most common languages in use.  Just because it is old does not make it out dated.  This statement is obviously bate for the general user, not developer type, to relate to.  Like how your older cars are not as good as new ones.  That does not hold water in this case and neither does Steve’s letter.

Flash is a successful business for Adobe,
and we can understand why they want to push it
beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low
power devices, touch interfaces and open web
standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

That is your opinion Steve. Unfortunately facts appear to indicate Flash will be a very usefull cross platform technology applicable for mobile to browser.

The avalanche of media outlets offering
their content for Apple’s mobile devices
demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary
to watch video or consume any kind of web
content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App
Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens
of thousands of developers to create graphically
rich applications, including games.

As long as everyone uses the web as Steve has dictated. Yes. Selling Apps in which Apple gets 30% or everything, yes.

Sorry but this is absurd.  The web is about using whatever works for you.  Be it open or closed.

Flash has a right to exist just as Apple has a right to sell locked down iTechnology.  However, Steve does not have the right to deceive and slander another company.  This is where Apple stepped over the line.  Adobe, on the other hand, has tried to follow Steve’s unrealistic laws and write the FlashCS5 Cross compiler. This has been slapped down with anti-competitive practices of changing the ULA for reasons that do not hold water.  This has never been about what Steve says.  Its about business models.  The CEO of Adobe is very right in saying that this is a smoke screen and this letter is nothing but FUD to try and justify anti-competitive behaviour.

New open standards created in the mobile era,
such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and
PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on
creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and
less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Again, deception.  Adobe have not criticised Apple.  Adobe employees and specifically Flash evangelists who are most likely working on the Flash to iPhone tools did.  Can you blame them?  They put long hard work into following Steve’s ULA.  Implementing a method of making Flash Technology on the iTechnology platform while keeping to the conditions in the ULA, only for Steve to change the wording just before launch.

HTML5 is only a small part of this.  Steve knowns this but is using it as a magical platform, that for all intensive purposes in not real yet as the standard and implementation are only still in early implementation and subject to change.  Because of this unknown potentaial of HTML5, it is the “Fix All pill” we hope will come along and fix those issues we all dislike about the Web.  The truth is, its not going to be anything like that..  Exactly the opposite in reality.

Why Do We Hate Flash

Flash is the Advertisers big stick they hit us with to make us take notice.  Like everyone, we hate being hit by this big stick.  What we have here is similar to the slogan “Guns don;t kill people, people kill people.” which equates to “Flash does not annoy the web surfer, the advertisers making the Flash content annoy the flash user.”

The issue here is that the Web Surfer cannot see past the ad, so they focus on Flash.

The performance issue is a group effort.  FlashCS4 does not lend itself to optimised programming but for real programmers its not difficult at all.  The Advertisers using flash want active and very eye catching ads jumping around attracting your eye.  This of course kills your battery and annoys the user.  Flash can be programmed to archive better then javascript and HTML5 type performance.  The biggest problem here is that it is not generally commercial for web developers to do this.  And this will be true for HTML5 as well.

Every programming language can be programmer poorly.  Even ObjectiveC, C or C++.  Adobe is guilty for letting this get out of hand.  Actionscript3 has brought this back in line a lot as it is far more programmer centric.  You need to understand the code much more.  You cannot simply cut and past into the time line in AS2.  However, at the same time, this has reduced the number of flash programmers as many AS2 users say it is too hard to use now.  Its a double edged sword.

Performance on OSX does SUCK.  Its Crap.  But as mentioned above, Apple is just as responsible if not more then Adobe.

HTML5 is not what we hope it to be

One of the biggest misconceptions of many Flash haters is that HTML5 will save their battery and stop the crashes.

Unfortunately this is WRONG.  The big issue here is that once HTML5 replaces flash, and as a flash developer, I would expect it to. Those who enjoy the ad free internet by using an Ad Blocker or Flash Blocker..  That will be impossible once HTML5 is adopted.  The browser will not be able to tell the difference between an ad and the website.  Ads will be proxied directly into the application, as if they are part of the website.  The ad-blockers will simply not be able to tell the difference.  This is why Google and now Microsoft (with its announcement to drop flash from IE9) are so into HTML5.  No more blocking the premium animated and most profitable ads.  Its obvious any company who makes money from online ads will want flash to disappear from online ads ASAP.

As the “HTML5 versus Flash: Animation Benchmarking” (See video explanation Comparison of performance of Flash Player 10.1 and HTML 5 on Mobile Devices) indicate, those ads you will no longer be able to block will be running all over your open web pages eating up more battery then Flash 10.1 would.

The HTML5 future everyone is hoping for is exactly the opposite of what it will deliver.

Here comes the DOJ

Considering the level of deception and properganda Apple is generating, the DOJ would have to get involved at some stage.  Apple is being anti-competative while also producing large amount of misleading and false information to the general end users.  This is of course hurting Adobe.  In Australia, if Apple was located here, would be in very deep trouble.  Anti-competative behaviour is illigal no mater if you are a monopoly or not.  In the US, these DOJ investigation, altho on the surface, has no real merrit in US law, the DOJ will be compalled to do some type of investigation.

Apple is being anti-competative.  If this behaviour is seen to effect any area Apple is deemed to monopolise, Apple is likely in trouble.  This being such a complex area with so many subjective views, this is unlikely to go any where.  However, the bigger issue here is   “Steve has been seen deceiving end users.”  Ie lying for his own gain.

This establishes that Steve is deceptive.  Where does this stop.  The end user?  The investor? The government?

The DOJ is compelled to have a closer look now.

Why does Apple want to displace Flash?

Finally we need to look at why Steve is pushing this issue so hard.  They want to displace flash as a dominant platform on the web.  I have seen a number of interesting post looking at very holistic reasons. This one is especially interesting but essentially wrong. “A good problem to have“.

Apple/Steve is very smart.  The one market he has not been able to dominate to the degree you would expect is ONLINE VIDEO. The online video owners, unlike the music industry, are a bit more aware of what Apple is trying to archive.  As a result, they have fragmented the industry as much as possible to ensure no indeviduel company can gain enough control as to start dictating to them the conditions.

Steve is trying to manuvor the online video industry into a position in which they have no option but to sell their soul to Apple.  To do this they have looked at the future trends of video. Producer to consumer.

Producer to consumer with subscription or paid to view will be the future.  However, this future will need a transaction system and a video distribution system.  Currently we have two options.  Apple and Adobe.

Its quite simple. Take out Adobe before its Flash platform really starts to shine in this area.  With hardware playback, better then javascript/HTML5 performance, the best authoring tools on the net, cross platform agnostic (Run on anything from a mobile phone, computer, TV) DRM, for those who want it (And all big content owners WILL) AND.. built in TORRENT technology.

Once Flash materialises this technology coming in 10.1 towards the use of video distribution on the net.  Apple will not be able to catch up..  Its all out WAR now.  Crack and kill the egg before it hatches.

I am very much behind Adobe/Flash on this mainly because Adobe is a tools company.  I will be able to purchase the tools to distribute to my consumers directly. I will control my future.  I will not have to ask Apple/Steve permission to distribute my content through his gateway and toll booth, the iTunes store.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as a developer who likes Flash, to tell the truth, I can respect the business decision by Steve to not allow Flash on their iTechnology platforms for good old competitive reasons.  What is wrong here is that Apple is on a campaign of deception.  They are not happy to not use flash, but are also producing FUD to displace Flash as a relevant web technology.

As a Apple user who may be reading this blog entry (And congratulations if you got this far), consider your relationship with your Apple products.  You have just been told your friend is deceptive and will lie to you to get what he wants from you.  How would this go down if this was your partner or best friend?

Let me finish with a video of Adobe’s CTO Kevin Lynch.  Here is a simple and honest view of where flash fits.  I could not agree more with what Kevin says.

I had visited this topic a few years ago in older posts.  Strangely enough looking back now, we do not seem any closer to many questions we need answered.  One of the big ones to me is:

Regional Price per item advertising can make up to 70% of the ads we see on TV. How does the new digital media future replace this?

Just to look at this issue.  New Digital Media advertising is very much based from a single producer making content for distribution all over the world.  This is a very cost effective model but cannot replace that 70% gap left behind in typical localised TV and radio.  You need more infrastructure (People on the ground in that local, regional content distribution and creation with regional advertising combination etc.).  The price structure of new Media simply cannot support these old school ideas on advertising.

So where does this 70% go.  Google has tried hard to build a solution but does not appear to be very successful “yet”.  The idea was to turn new media advertising into a Web advertising type model. The idea is to use the regional website poster ads and turn this model into an infrastructure engine to replace the 70% of TV/Radio advertising model.

Unfortunatly, what you can build and how business works are not always the same.  And from what I see, the business of media buying, in which you have large advertising companies talking to huge media buyers and making a lot of this 70% of traditional advertising spend..  They want to keep it the same.  This new model cuts them out.

So where to now?

No idea really. (If I knew I wouldn;t be writing this would I).  I personally see the slow and eventual rise of networks like TWIT.TV and similar ones that build local advertising into local content.  They will slowly grow until they errode the traditional methods.

“… developers will be free to use their own technological measures to secure content. The RTMP specification does not provide any requirement or restrictions on a developer’s own measures to secure content.”

See the full Adobe release here.

This is unexpected news as it means open source implementations of DRM type service will now be possible.  This greatly reduces the value of the the Flash Media Server and Adobe DRM-server, tho open source servers such as RED5, have already been ready to fill this space.

Unfortunately, in my mind, there may still be a big hole in all this development.  Being able to make the RTMP packets for the secure interface build into Flash is one thing.  A more interesting development would be the capability to sit in between the encrypted file and the video decoder.  This would allow progressive streaming, as done with most video providers such as YouTube, but with custom encrypted data. This would allow distributors to easily write a custom decoder in the Flash player.  However, it is not clear if this announcement makes this possible.

Example.

• Server has AES128bit encrypted video data with some tweaking to make it unique to that distributor.
• End user accesses the file using typical progressive download with offset capabilities. (Like YouTube)
• End user uses custom Flash video player that can decode the custom encrypted content.
• Flash player then has direct access to the H.264 codec in the Flash player.
• The end user has typical video experience we all use and understand today, however, the content cannot be viewed outside of the control of the distributor.
• This system can also be used with Adobe-AIR and media files based on local hard drive.

This is not a bullet proof DRM, but it will stop most people and at the same time, be cheap to implement and as cheap as it comes for distribution.  Anyone capable of bypassing this type of DRM is likely capable of bypassing even the most expensive DRM.  As every distributor can easily write their own custom DRM, it also means if  a distributor person has their system bypassed, it does not effect you with your custom version.

It is important to look at this with an eye to the future.  DRM content is definitely NOT the future for most content, however, custom content with neche appeal is likely to maximise the ROI utilising some of there techniques.  DRM is not completely dead, its just growing up and should only be applied when it actually does work for a specific business model.

It is simply more apparent now, those business models and not common.

Strangely enough, the industry is actually NOW starting to follow exactly what I had foretold.

In brief it goes like this.

DRM is the wrong name and a major reason it has such a bad name.  It should be called something like UIF (User inconvenience factor)  I had a better name for it, but it was such a long time ago and the old blogs I posted to are long gone and the archives deleted. I did look.

The copy protection portion does not need to be bullet proof. For example, DVD is very easy to copy, but in general, you need to be very keen to work it all out.  As such it is inconvenient for most end users to do so. As such it is more convenient simply to purchase another copy.  Spending millions on a uncrackable system, forcing total control of the devices to the manufacturer to keep updating them as they do inevitably get cracked….  These ideas will never work.

An agreed standard that every maker/brand of media player should accept and only implement devices that support this copy protection system.

In my view, it could simply be a AES128 bit encryption with a user selectable key Ie a 4 digit pin or a phone number. Very standard and very easy to implement.  Any supporting device could then accept up to 10 programmable pins and play any protected content for those pins.  Ie so a media player could play all the content from a family with up to 10 members.  No issues.  Just play the file as easy as MP3.  Yes this does mean it will be relatively easy to share content, but in the long run inconvenient to share content from many sources.  Keeping track of pins etc.  The inconvenience factor grows until, simply purchasing it is a better solution.

At the end of the day, its all about convenience.  DRM is not what we need.  We need a system that can give the end user the freedom they want, but at the same time introduce an “inconvenience factor” that encourages the end user to do what is right and purchase the content they use.

When I last wrote about this, I came to the conclusion that this is most likely the best way forward, however, the mind set of the big brands such as Sony, it was total control of bust.  Well, as its looking more and more like BUST. Hell hath frozen over..  Read the new stategy from SONY here.

Apple is also going for this utopia, but in the more controlled manor.  See my post

In which I describe Apple’s attempt to become the  ubiquitous media platform with a self imposed DRM system.  Apple is hoping to reach such a critical mass that they become the de facto standard which everyone would then have to license. (No hope, but you cannot blame them for trying.)

Microsoft has also attempted this for years, but largely has abandoned the idea.  Currently they seem to be focusing on the cable companies.  Personally I think the are a bit lost and are not sure witch way to jump.  They are putting Silverlight out there in a big way to see what happens.

FOLLOW UP: There has been yet another development on this topic.

A group of major media industry companies called the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem that includes Best Buy, Cisco Systems, Comcast and HP will share details of its interoperability and media usage rights plan at the Consumer Electronics Show.

UPDATE: Angelo Tilocca has contacted me and has pointed out what we both consider to be a misunderstanding.  To clear it all up, let me quote him in regards to the use of Microsoft and Silverlight by the ABC.

—

Thanks James.

Confirming that ABC Commercial has launched its integrated ABC Shop
Media Player and its Downloads Manager.

This gives you access to a huge catalogue of ABC related DVD, CD and audio
products to buy or rent in a high quality downloadable format that can be
stored and played back at your convenience, on your home computer.

http://shop.abc.net.au/html/downloads/default.shtm

We have used Silverlight for these applications.

I have no visibility in terms of the broader ABC's use of Microsoft
other than we use Office across the board.

And that we offer WMV and/or Flash Video for all ABC streaming video
services (http://www.abc.net.au/vod/news/).

Trust this clarifies any misunderstanding.

Regards
Angelo

—

The original Post follows.

————————————

I was recently at a conference on “The Business of Digital Content” run by AMIA. I managed to land a seat next to Angelo Tilocca, Manager Content Licensing, ABC. (Australia’s public broadcaster)  As iView was recently released by the ABC allowing viewers to “Catch Up” on shows recently show on the ABC, I asked him about the technology and where the ABC is likely to take it.  Finally, if they planned to use Adobe’s new DRM system and/or the Adobe Media Player (AMP) technology?

Surprisingly the answer was “No, we are going to implement Silverlight for our long terms online strategy.” I picked myself of the floor and asked “WHY?” Angelo Tilocca came back with a comment to the effect that.  Adobe DRM system does not cut it.

I left it there.  I did not want to push it, and really, I did not expect to get this type of information out of him.  If the ABC was going to be using Silverlight in a big way, you would expect it to be a major headline similar to NBC using Silverlight for the Olympics site.

In many ways, this is more controversial as the ABC is an independent organisation. The NBC has historical connections to Microsoft, so it is not surprising to see them adopt Silverlight in such a hi profile site.

The ABC is considered to be the local equivalent of the BBC.  The iView technology follows in the foot steps of the BBC’s iPlayer.  The BBC and the iPlayer have, over the past year, generated some very interesting chatter in the blogosphere.  Especially about the use of DRM.  The BBC was highly criticised for the initial version of the iPlayer was based on Microsoft DRM and as such was restricted to Windows.

The BBC responded to this by re-releasing the iPlayer as a Flash player, initially with On2 proprietary codec, but moved to the new H.264 support now available in adobe flash player.  Still, others criticised this asking why a public broadcaster, who even makes an open source codec called Dirac was not pushing free and open codecs.

Considering the heat the BBC has gotten over these decisions, the ABC is in an interesting position.

Does Adobe DRM Cut it

This decision does point out that Adobe’s online video technology, even as it is so prominent with web video, is not up to scratch when it comes to the requirements for the larger content gatekeepers and their perceived need for DRM. (I am not here to argue the pros and cons of DRM).

Is the Adobe DRM system ready?  Apart from Adobe Media Player (AMP), I have not seen any independent implementations.  And the DRM server has been available for about 6 months now.

Video and DRM is a market Microsoft has been spending big on for years.  Adobe does have its Acrobat DRM type technology, but it’s a different ball game.

Microsoft does have a very large DRM and video streaming product range.  From its products aimed at Cable companies to the new support for Silverlight for Web.  Microsoft would seemingly have a more complete and field tested vision.  Realistically, this is not an a surprising decision, however politically, it could be a bumpy ride.

Microsoft focus

Let me tell a story about Microsoft’s priorities.

In my company we sell e-Cinema digital playback systems used for art house or new form media (Operas) in Cinemas.  A recent contract with the US lead us to require encryption of content.  The US company had already developed a system using Microsoft DRM but wanted to jump onto our technology as it was superior in many ways.

At the start, we both tried to contact Microsoft for a DRM SDK for implementation of it into our technology.  One would expect, as the US partner had already spend a lot of time and development on this and wanted to go forward, that Microsoft would be ready to help.

Microsoft ignored all attempts to contact their key people from Australia, and eventually from our partners in the US, trying to go contact DRM department directly.

This show how focused they are on Silverlight and the future of Video and DRM. Everything else is on the back burner for now.

In the end, we developed our own proprietary encryption system. c’est la vie.

1. Flash is a back door to iPhone Applications in which Apple will not get the 30% cut in sales.

2. Apple wants to break the strangle hold Adobe Flash video has on the web.

Item 1 is a no brainer.  The excuses quoted by Apple for no flash support are thin, in my opinion, and only really advantage them by cutting out Adobe.

Item 2 is a little more pervasive.  Adobe has recently released DRM products giving it similar capabilities as iTunes.  Both companies are head to head in becoming a key player in online digital video. Lets look into it deeper.

The idea behind iTunes is well known.  A Portal into all your digital media needs.  Right now it dominates the Music side.  But video wise, its not doing so well but arguably is the leader.

What Apple needs is to offer the digital video distribution market a full package. For example.  Video from the iTunes store is on your mobile device (iPod), your TV (AppleTV) and the Web (Quicktime X).

This would then allow them to sell video content that will play everywhere you want it on Apple technology.  This then opens the doorway to the DRM utopia.  Buy once, play everywhere…  But with DRM working everywhere too.

As you can imagine, this is “A dream come true” of the current incumbent distribution companies trying to stay relevant with current business modems in a changing world.  Apple would be in a position to offer them the closest thing to it.  iTunes would truly become the “One Ring” of the online digital video industry. (Note: there are issues with this I will cover later)

They have the first two, and are working on the last.  Topple Adobe Flash as the media player of choice on the Internet and the have checkmate.

Quicktime X is on its way. Here it comes, the Adobe Flash killer (for video).  Apple will use the iTunes user base to get it out fast. (Same as the safari web browser which downloaded to all iTunes users be default).

Quicktime X is unlikely to be a Full flash competitor (Animation, vector graphics etc.)  It will simply answer the video side of the equation with an implementation that works with Javascript.  For example, integrates into the AJAXian side of the Internet.

Quicktime X may not have all the visual interactivity that Flash offers, but this is not needed. AJAX interfaces can look nice and be very effective.  It also has some tricks up its sleeve.

Final Cut Studio, the tool of choice for making online video is an Apple tool and very much offers you easy creation of content for all your online digital needs.  Of course, these tools will completely integrate into the Quicktime X story pushing you to use it.

Before I go further, let me state that I am not a big supporter of DRM.  Tho I do believe that DRM used in the right way can improve your return of investment.  DRM, in general, however has proven itself to be ineffective, a waist of money to the producer and a poor experience to the consumer. See the history of Music and DRM.  Video is a different story, and I do believe DRM may be able to be used as was tear based distribution models (Cinema, Cable, Rental Store, DVD).

Let me also state that the issue here is not that DRM will or will not be used in the future.  The real issue it to convince the incumbent players to embrace the future.  Many of us believe that DRM will fail no mater what.  It is the perception that DRM will save them that lets them move forward.  And this is the game Apple is playing.

As you can see, the picture I have painted is a master peace and what you would come to expect from Steve Jobs.  Now to the fly in the soup.

Open Source Software (OSS).

Recently FireFox beta 3.1 released a version of the browser with the HTML 5 video support.  This version now also incorporates the open source video codecs Theora for Video and ogg vorbis for audio.  See this. What we have here is a technology that is likely what Quicktime X is going to be.  Its all open source supported and free to use.

Apple, if it plans to become a Flash video killer, needs as little dilution of the market as posible.  These types of developments are not likely to stop Apple, but are likely to muddy the water and slow it down.

Another example of this muddy water is this.

"Nokia has filed a submission with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
objecting to the use of Ogg Theora as the baseline video standard for
the Web. Ogg is an open encoding scheme (On2, the company that
developed it, gave it and a free, perpetual unlimited license to its
patents to the nonprofit Xiph foundation), but Nokia called it
"proprietary" and argued for the inclusion of standards that can be
used in conjunction with DRM, because "from our viewpoint, any
DRM-incompatible video related mechanism is a non-starter with the content industry (Hollywood). There
is in our opinion no need to make DRM support mandatory, though." .....

Here is an example of how muddy the waters are likely to get.

Conclusion

Apple has a good plan here.  Exactly how relevant it will be into the future is unknown.  But moving the industry into the future of digital media, under any reasoning is fine by me. Apple may become the “One Ring” of digital media for a time.  But due to the technologies available, it is likely to fragment and become competitive over time.

The bandwidth issues has been touted as the main reason.  For example, until the internet is upgraded giving higher bandwidth access to the consumers it is not really a viable concern… yet.  If the incumbent players did start advertising and promoting access to TV shows, the internet would arguably collapse under the weight of the strain of trying to support the bandwidth requirements.

This, to me, is a smoke screen as those who largely want this type of TV experience are getting it now with the current internet using shared infrastructure.  TORRENTS.

What the industry really is working on is new advertising models which can hopefully be successful in an ira where the consumer has complete control.  With a flick of the finger, anything the consumer don;t want to watch is gone.  Commercials, poor content. Everything.

So looking forward, one would consider a similar model in which the consumer is already in this dominant position, but at the same time the industry is commercialized and growing…  WEB SITES.

This leads me to the dominant player in commercializing this area. Google.

Strangely enough, media and blogosphere has had little to say about Googles roles in this.  But here are a few I did find..
Google enters the PC to TV arena
Google wants to do for TV what it did for the Web

And most importantly
Advertising on TV just got easier with Google TV Ads

It is also on Techcrunch
The Google Set-Top Box (Think Android For TV)

Looking at the general commercialization of the Internet one very important issues is apparent.

“Standardization in advertising, production, distribution and display”

Standards have always been the key to a healthy advertising medium and in some ways is a indicator to the health and likelihood of a robust industry.  An example of this is the banner ad self imposed standards, resolutions and file sizes, that came out many years back.  After which, we started to see banner ads everywhere.  Google introducing its on standard of simply text based ads that have also proven to be very successful and popular.

What I am trying to point out here is that, for example, YouTube, the king of online video has been trying all forms of advertising around video content.  Post/pre rolls.  Interstitials etc.  None have worked very well.

If Google plan to move forward and dominate video on the web, they have to base it around a set of known standards.

For example,  recently I heard some one say Google was very successful as they had the eye balls.  I could not disagree more.  Google is successful as hey can get advertising out to websites owners that own the eye balls. The key here if that Google has studied and formulated a way to do this as automated as possible with the best results as possible.

The challenge here for google and everyone else in this area, is how do we do this for video?

This then breaks down to.  UNTIL we can do this for video on the web, we want to slow down moving to this new medium as much as possible.  We have a 100’s of billions of dollar industry looking for future relevance.

From comments I have gotten from my Blog, in which I seem to have attracted a number of inside people, unfortunately, its not looking like the incumbents are close to any real solution.

The rosy picture painted by some is that in the future, “THEY” will track everything.  They will know exactly what commercials we watch, if we skip them and more. From this data, a new form of cost for advertising will be born. A new form of AD will be born.  Entertaining Ads we are less likely to switch off. Shorter ads we don;t have time to skip. Product placement.  Ads built into the content like the old radio days.

All this is possible, but is it likely in a future were only ZONE free DVD players are for sale in my local electronics store?

I personally do think some type of compromise is possible in terms of what the consumer wants and how much money the incumbents can make out of us.  But like any compromise, neither sire will be completely happy.

This trend has just been turned into a reality with Sony announcing that by Christmas, 90% or all TV on sale will be Internet ready,  and to quote the Sony release..

Sony will embrace open standards “to improve interoperability among all of our customers’ devices.”

See this report “Sony sets sights on global networked entertainment“.

They are:

• Verismo Box Plugs Web into Your TV: this is a very good example of the trend towards a open STB with no direct connection to the larger companies.  Ie Microsoft, Apple.  This is intended to be a cheap STB that can utilise as many services as they can get API’s from/for.
• Panasonic Pipes YouTube Directly to TVs: Another example of a large consumer electronics maker making an open STB for general free content on the web.
• Sony To Bring YouTube To HDTV Sets: Sony is getting into the act too.
• R.I.P. SanDisk’s TakeTV, Fanfare Shut Down: A filed quirky attempt.  Not unexpected.
• YouTube Set to Dominate the Boob Tube: A story pointing out how YouTube is partnering with all these general purpose STB and becoming very dominent in this space.
• Apple Should Open Up: More comments from about how AppleTV needs to be open to take off.
• Scoop: Boxee to Go Alpha on Monday: Yet more developments towards open STB with the very well know and popular XBMC (X-Box Media Centre) open source project launching into this space.
• I would also like to mention ADOBE’s release of AMP (Adobe Media Player), all the DRM technology and that Flash Player for embded devices as been made free.  Obviously something is cooking here.

I would like to point out that these stores have all come out in no less then a month.  Thats a lot of action in the STB area.

Still, I find this all very worrying as unlike the past, there is no one driving the development of what I like to compare to as the Analog TV Tuner of past to todays Internet-TV-Tuner of the future.

In the past, organisations such as SMPTE where formed so that the development of TV technologies was based around standards.  Content was structured and produced in a documented way as so it could then be trasnsmitted in a standard way. Any TV manufactuer could simply follow these standards and have a working TV set on the market.

Altho these standards bodies exist and an attempt by them has been made to address the issues of Internet TV, the current state of play is that it is a complete mess.  We have many suppliers using proprietory technologies, trying to leverage their products into a dominent position.

These organisations are very powerful and have, in my opinion, stifeled any movement towards simple open standards for which would allow the adoption of Internet TV to take off.

There is a lot of potential power and money at stake, so no one is willing to “play ball” so to speak.

Fortunatly the technological tuth to all this is that open based STB are inevitable.

For Example.  Lets look at DVD region coding.  This was a way to let the distributors control the release of content around the world.  The movie would be released in the US, for example, under REGION-1.  Here in Australia, Region-6, we would not be able to play that DVD.

Strangely enough, I have never had a problem with this as REGION-FREE DVD players came out very quickly.  REGION-coding today is next to useless.  Consumers eventually learnt about these issues, and today, the consumer electronics stores simply will not stock Region-restricted DVD players are they simply cannot sell them.

The AppleTV for example is already in this bucket.  A consumer who is interested in a AppleTV is as, he is knowledgeable enough to understand that purchasing an AppleTV only really means he can watch shows blessed by Steve, of pod-casts specifically designed for it. (You can hack it to do anything however)

A potential consumer of an AppleTV would understand Torrents, and that alternative content is around, and that obviously, anything he purchases, he will want to also play that content.

This may look to be a trivial matter, but from my experience it is quite the opposite.

The standard TV set of the future is going to need a TV tuner of the future, ie an Internet TV tuner.  This tuner technology needs to be cheap but at the same time as powerful as possible.  I am a big fan of the Adobe mythology as it is possible that each CHANNEL can load its own user interface designed specifically for the target consumer. It can also be easily updated.  Ie the way you use the channel can evolve with the user.  The complexity can evolve with the user.  The Social aspects of the channel can evolve with the evolution of social networks.

The STB of the future still looks like its a fair way down the road. I just hope the incumbent players who are trying to take advantage of this realise sooner then later that we need to get together and head down this road collaboratively soon.  As the longer they procrastinate, the more likely we are to damage the production industry and ultimately the TV shows we love to watch.  At the current rate of development, nether side will end up with very much.

Unfortunately, there was considerable miss-information based around the fact that most of these people are mis-informed about details surrounding many of the issues.

For example, ARIA wants to do a three strikes and your out.  You loose you right to have an Internet connection.  The ISP representative insisted that other more creative ways away from punishment is the way forward.  This is correct, however, he did not mention that any efforts an ISP takes can, if end users are trapped, can be bypass with improved technology.

It would be a cat and mouse game.

I would compare it to the postal service.  Are the postal service responsible for you sending illegal items via the post?  Imagine if they where.  Imagine the costs of opening all the items to check what was in them.  Imagine the costs grow as end users use better technology to hide the illegal content.  The Postal service would have to spend more money and time to try and keep on top.  This is of course all ludicrous.  And the same goes for ISP’s.