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.

So what is going on.  Development tools are expensive to develop. Why are they been given away now?

As the use of computers, PDA’s, Mobile phones has increased, the more important factor for these products has not been selling the tools or programs used on them but to simply own a decent portion of the market by having the applications available to them.

The more Applications available for your product the better.  Especially if the tools are NOT-cross platform and lock the end user into the product as an investment.  Ie like not being able to move your (mobile) phone number to any other telco.  Your locked in and the telco can take advantage of this.

Lets have a brief look at the four main players. Microsoft, Apple,  Google and Adobe.

Apple and the iPhone has changed the landscape of development.  Initially some of the development tools for Apple did come with a small cost.  These days they are free for anyone who cares to download them.  Especially iPhone development tools.  Initially a cost was involved to become an iPhone developer.  This is no longer apparent and iPhone development has been pushed onto any developer to pass the Apple developer site.

Apple has identified that it is the plethra of Apps on the App-Store that is locking user into the platform. This reminds me of the early days of the Computer and a factor Microsoft used effectively on its road to dominance.

Google, a leader in Open-Source development tools, is putting an extrordinary amount of investment in giving free tools and development platforms away.  These tools encourage the use of the Internet as a platform.  And as we all know, Google makes more and more money, the more we use the Internet to search or surf.  It is within their interest to get everyone using the internet as much as possible.  Open-source tools that direct users away from walled garden tools are where Google is encouraging us to go.

Microsoft, in which Steve Palmer is famous for shouting “Developers Developers, DEVELOPERS”, is now in a difficult position.  It has a very mature development tool set which once cost a decent amount to obtain.  All the tools are not available for free under limited conditions, or can be obtained for long evaluation periods.  Still, they tend to be the most expensive.  And really, it is probably hard for them to reduce costs or make them free.  Especially when there is a huge business community that are happy to pay for tools and support to go with them.

Microsoft know that developers drive the success of selling infrastructure.  For example, if all the business tools are based on Microsoft development tools. Large organisations are likely to purchase Microsoft server and other expensive business software tools to run them on. The free or near free nature of the tools coming out of Apple, Google and Adobe are definatly making it hard for Microsoft.

Adobe is new to this area with the newly dubbed ”Flash Platform” including Flex, Flash Professional and many other new tools. Adobe is trying to leverage the success of Flash as a Web technology.  These tools are easy to get and very inexpensive.  Adobe hopes that back-end infrastructure technology will drive the profits.  For example video streaming and DRM server purchased at very high prices by the incumbent media gatway companies. However, I am doubt this will work for them.

Adobe Flash technology does have (performance) issues.  The idea behind what Flash has evolved into is, from a developer perspective, very good.  Microsoft has identified that and given birth the Silverlight.  Possibly one of the most impressive developments from the Microsoft Development DEV team ever.  However, those who would likely use these tools, the general web developer, tend to be anti Microsoft.  Silverlight has less traction/takeup then anyone expected. In the business community it is probably very different, however as a general web surfer you will not see evidence of this.

As a developer, it has never been a better time.  The tools are fantastic and next to nothing to get.  I feel like a kid in a candy store..  And the candy is all FREE.

To help explain my point of view, lets look at some trends we have direct experience with.

Google Apps; this is hurting Microsoft more then they are willing to admit.  My company, and many I know, have stopped using their Exchange servers, and opened up a free Google Apps account.  They couldn’t be more happy.  They may be loosing some functionality, but in real terms those features are not in common use, and other free online services exist to fill in some of the gaps.  Google Apps also needs far less CPU power (less $$) and is inherently mobile as it works on any web terminal.  The need for a Windows PC to run Outlook is removed. Users are free to use the operating system of choice, be it XP, Vista, MacOSX or linux.

Google appears to have the future vision of online services in good focus.  Chrome Browser is Google’s attempt to speed up the “Browser as an OS” future.  Chrome was a direct shot over Microsoft bow. Azure, is Microsoft’s volley, and it is not a warning shot like Chrome was.

Microsoft realises that dominance of the OS market is going to be a short term future.  End users have realised that they do not need to purchase the bigger and faster system every few years.  Computers are fast enough to do what they need, and have been for years now.  The push of more complex operating systems and eye catching graphics does little for productivity.  Linux is really starting to  evolve into a reasonable desktop OS, while XP is all users really need. OSX is showing its superiority as sale indicate.  XP is being sold for  a fraction of its original price just to complete on the netbook PC market and the growing Linux base.  Microsoft needs to keep this base small, otherwise it will reach critical mass, and hard ware makers will see a reason to spend some money developing it to XP feature set.  Then its all over for XP/Microsoft in many ways.

The open source movement just keeps moving on slowly, as such, it will eventually break Microsoft and other commercial Operating systems as the dominant OS for general use (Web, Email, IM).  It is simply inevitable.  As such, Microsoft needs to start positioning itself now for that future.

And what is that future?

Online services.  Look out if you are a small data centre. Microsoft is heading into your business space.  Data centres are big users of Microsoft product and the yearly maintenance, Microsoft needs to build in value and take over this market to replace that which is going away.

This is an important time as Linux has been kicking huge goals in the Application server market.  Google is completely based on it.  So is Yahoo.  If IT services is one of the last profitable areas, then Microsoft will want to own it. They really need to establish a fantastic developer platform and cloud computing service. If anyone can, Microsoft can.

This new platform means developers will be developing software to run on cloud computing systems. Defiantly the future.  Microsoft wants developers to make these tools as so they run on their cloud technology, and as such, keep Microsoft receiving yearly fees from every business.

It comes down to.. If you cannot make money on the sale of the development tools and the software, make the money on something they have to pay for, even if they are using free/open source software.  The cloud infrastructure it will live on.  Services are immune to free software and development tools.

Finally, lets look at the offering.  The killer app here from Microsoft is going to be Silverlight. Google, Yahoo are pushing javascript based interface engines, however, neither of them have a platform that is as advanced and capable as Silverlight.  Adobe Flex/Flash is out there, but does not appear to have traction with the big players as a future Cloud development platform.

Lets get this straight.  Javascript based internet applications are NEVER going to be as capable as, for example, Native Microsoft Word.  However, Silverlight will get it much closer then any other technology available now or on the road maps of other technologies. Flex/Flash a close second.  Javascript/AJAX frame works will probably archive very functional applications, but the polish and user interface speed will never match.

Many developers I know seem to downplay these issues.  I see this as short sightedness as natural evolution dictates end user will gravitate toards what is fast, nicer to look at when availble under the same conditions.

UPDATE: Last night Microsoft announced Silverlight based version of its Office suite including Outlook.  Major signs of the roadmap as descripbed above. Google watch out..  However, early reports are that the web version of Office apps will not be free, and you will need to have purchased the future Office release for access to online versions.  Obviously these apps will also become free as in google apps, but with limited features.  Google’s vision of online apps is simply to get control of the eyeballs and in general, the ads which they see.  This is why Yahoo was such an important purchase for Microsoft.  You need a effective way to monetise these eyeballs.  The purchase is probably still very much on the cards if we do not see Microsoft building that infrastructure themselves.  They will eventually purchase it. And yahoo is still the best option and now a very good buy at $12 down from the high $27 offer.

This post is prodominatly about my frustration with the blogosphere in that much has been written about how open-web technologies and Javascript frame works will be the future of Web Applications.

This is flat out incorrect.  Tho I would admit it will be a substantial part of out near future.  Still, lets get real.

This morning as I was walking to the pool for a swim, an Idea in which I had a chance to over come the Mac Fanboy one eyed opinion came to me.

(Note before I continue, lets have a quick description of a Web Application.  A Web application, as seen on the Demo sites of Sproutecore and Cappuccino as real applications. They cannot be read by Search engines, similarly to other non-javascript RIA implementations (Silverlight, Flex))

Why Javascript is not the second coming as it was touched by god (Steve jobs).

As a Mac Fanboy, you must understand that before the OSX days, OS9 and all the preceding versions, however nice to use, was probably one of the worst operating systems, in terms if underlying foundations, that you had to pay money to get.  The older Mac OS was hammered into submission to get many of the highly respected applications to behave well.  However, OS9 was not a contender to move forward with where operating system where going.  Steve Jobs, with NextStep OS came to save the day.

Now, as a developer and a observer of the industry over many years.  IMHO, Open-web with Javascript frame works is the OS9 or the Web.  Yes it will take us a long way and give us amazing apps.  But the implementation simply does not carry to the future of what the Web will become.  Maybe I am jumping the gun a little.  Still, talk to any open-source developer and he will speak with pain at how slow the open-web is at evolving.

A more realistic implementation of where web applications are going is, unfortunately, Microsoft Silverlight.  Like usual, Microsoft is late to the game but they have the advantage of foresight and current trends to help them evolve Silverlight as the most refined technology available for what most see at the future or Internet Applications. (Don’t forget, Silverlight is Microsoft’s key to offering WORD and the Office suite on the web).  Adobe Flex and its RIA implementation for the flash player is also very close, and it does have a big advantage in that most of its technology is now open source. (Yes some key aspects are kept by Adobe, but realistically, they are being very generous.)

I am not saying, “Don’t use JavaScript Frameworks”.  They are likely to be a big part of the future and a common gateway to bridge between other RIA technologies, Ie Flex, Silverlight.  However, please take a step back and take a realistic over view of where each technology is best suited and what  their limitations are.

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.

Microsoft, in recent times, has been making a big song and dance about developers. (The Steve Palmer “developers, developers, developers” dance for example)  Microsoft does have one thing right, developers are what makes platforms thrive.  They know this and have, over the years, done a very good job at giving the developers what they want, for example, the best IDE (Integrated developer environment) in the world.

Unfortunately, this is no longer good enough.  Microsoft tools have, in general, been very Microsoft centric. (They generally push you towards using (Paying) for a lot of Microsoft tools and end user licenses.) DOT.NET is also been quite a disaster in many ways with Microsoft themselves been unable to give a well defined description, and those you do use it, find it very buggy and monolithic.

While this has been happening, open source technologies have been thriving. Javascript frame works, Ruby and Rails, php, mysql, java going open source, the list goes on and on.  These technologies, most anyway, tend to be easy to learn and resonably lean.  For more applicable to the new generation of Rich Internet application (RIA) development.

It is important to point out here that all of the companies Microsoft sees as a threat are all based on such technologies.  Google, Yahoo for example.  In general, however, name any Web2.0 company and they are not using any Microsoft tools.  Its all open source and Mac driving towards there own proprietory software and patents.

Lets not forget Adobe/flash here.  Alltho the open source tools are quite capable, a tool set that is capable of making RIA (Rich Internet applications) such as Photoshop express or a Word replacement (buzzword) that is nearly as capable as Word is not possible, and is unlikely to be possible based on the committee based development and speed of open technologies.  This is quite a contentious issue especially as Apple has rejected Flash.  I would contend that this has more to do with who’s Video playing technology is dominant on the Web.  Adobe Flash is at the moment, but Apple with Quicktime X plans to change that. (Its all about video platforms not capabilities. (And the DRM capabilities there-in Philip) but thats another blog post.

As Adobe identified this trend and purchased Macromedia/Flash, Microsoft has now also identified this.  As tools like Word and Excel are to go to RIA (Rich Internet Application) type implementations, technologies like Flash are best suited.  (Small Note, Flash SWF files as in that created via the Animation tools in CS3 are not the issue here.  CS3 has a time line animation background and can tend to be CPU intensive as the programmers are generally not a real programmers as apposed to designers doing some programming)  It is flash created via the Adobe Flex FREE SDK that is where RIA on Flash lives.  Flash has grown into a RIA tool set as Macromedia/Adobe noticed end users using it in that way.  It is only recently that they have started optimizing it for this.

Microsoft is late to the game, as usual, and identifying this trend, has rushed out Silverlight.  Silverlight is very much based on the directions of Flash and its Flex development tools, with a Microsoft twist.

Finally, lets not forget, there will always be the need for fully client side tools.  Tools that cannot and never will be network based.  Example of these are all the Adobe CS3 tool set in which you are manipulating very large files and elegant and complex user interfaces. In general however, any tools that needs a lot of I/O (reading a lot of data) are not suitable (But not out of the question.)

Microsoft Office tools, however, are very suitable.  It is not unreasonable to reach a very equivalent RIA implementation.  And in general, a version that is well within the requirements of the growing Internet user.

With all that is happening “Where to now developer”.

Well, if your following the Web2.0 dream, its not Microsoft.  Its open ource based technologies with a touch of Flash (Youtube and any video sites…  Rockyou and other interactive tools.)

If your aiming at business, Microsoft is still hard to pass over.  SMS (Small business server) has made huge inroads into small business over the years, and most if not all larger companies very much rely on Microsoft.  Tho, Open source technologies are making decent inroads here as well.

Java, now part of open source, has become the black sheep of development in many ways.  It was once painted as the future of RIA, but has completely failed in this area and is barely if ever seen these days in a web browser.  However, as a enterprise back end technology it is doing very well.  It is also having some strength in desktop cross platform apps like Open-Office.

Finally lets not forget embedded devices.  An area in which Linux rules. (Ie your ADSL router.  ATM machines,  Petrol pumps.)  A very large industry very much over looked.  Embedded systems have tended towards open tools as there is usually a lot of low level development needed, so using an OS you have complete control of and has no licensing costs has tended to dominate.

Finally, the new kids of the block.  The Web site developer. Skilled in HTML, Javascript and other web techno loges, these developers are now being told they have the tools to make applications.  Javascript frames works have come a long way, and what was once a well made FROM, in some cases is now considered an RIA.  This is an area where the definition of what an RIA is a bit grey.  But we definitely have a lot of telent growing from this field.  And they all love and insist on standards based, if not open source, tools witch they know and love.

One trend is very evident.  Open source development is seen as the area where the larger opportunities exist. Good old Microsoft tools are a well payed IT lifestyle but not seen as the future.  Microsoft Mesh is their response, and we are yet to see how this will pan out.  Microsoft has also made some major inroads to accepting Open ssource as a part of the industry and choosing to live with it instead of fighting it. Has Microsoft has changed it spots, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing?  As an older blogger who has seen Microsoft at the peek of its evil empire, I will need a lot of convincing before I give them a chance. It takes a lot of star troopers to make an evil empire culture. Like any cancer, its very difficult to overcome.

My Web/Javascript programming friends do not even consider sproutcore is as good as many other javascript libraries on the net for example, the Yahoo libray, mootools etc.  However, because Apple is using it and promoting it and Apple has very publicly refused to support Adobe Flash.  This is a big deal.

Apple has given some relevant but ultimately hollow reasons to refuse the support of FlashLite (As a developer I never expected full Flash support), probably one of the most asked for features on the Iphone.  This leads everyone to ask WHY?

Sproutcore is the first sign of why.  In my opinion, this is the main reason why the hype engine is running into the red/extreme zone.  Ultimately it gives us a hint that Apple are actually considering introducing a competitive product to Flash and Silverlight.

As a developer Sproutcore, as an alternative to a real Internet application development environment, is laughable.  All these new javascript frameworks are, in a simplistic description, just an extension to the typical old HTML <FORM> type features and widgets but better looking and friendly-er with real time feedback.

A set of widgets does not an application make.

If we look at current Internet applications which only use Javascript frameworks.  You will notice they are extremely limited and simple.  Javascript frameworks are simply not well suited for extensive Internet Applications.  It gets over complex fast and slows down very quickly.  I have seen flash/flex internet applications that simply cannot be done in Javascript frameworks.  A good example of these are the online picture editing tools like, Photoshop Express.

Lets look at the other Internet God, Google.  Google is a flagship of businesses built on OSS (Open Source Software).  Much of their technology is based on it.  Android, the new Mobile Phone OS and much more.  Still, Google does use Flash extensively in all their analytics products.  The new Flash version of Google Maps API, in my opinion, is far superior then the AJAX version. (Faster, Zooms better, etc)

Google is not afraid to use the right technology for the right Job.

Adobe has also, in recent months, released much of the specifications of FLASH.  So much so that writing your own Flash player is now very possible (From my understanding a number of open source projects are chewing on this right now.)  Adobe did not , however, release much of the information regarding the video and DRM systems. (What did you expect)

Flash has its uses.  The lack of flash on ANY of apple websites and iPhone restrict it from any type of analytics and data representation.  It restricts if from more complex Applications that are possible in Flash and Silverlight.  Apple, proud of its superior OS and software, this simply does not jell.

Still, Apple is right about one thing.  Javascript frameworks like Sproutcore is very suitable for the iPhone applications.  the widgets it supports and the type of applications you would use on the iPhone can mostly be implemented with Sproutcore.

Reading other blog analysis of this issue, much weight is put into the issue that Steve wants to support non-proprietary standards for its tools.  This is a nice “Purist view” but nothing more then hot air.  Apple may encourage the use of open standard on its products, however, Steve knows more then most that, to make a superior and well defined product, open source development methodology simply does not work.  Look at Linux for the desktop.  It could be as refined and as good as OSX.  It has come a long way but has not and possibly never will reach that level of OSX as Linux is an OS with a vision sourced by hundreds of developers around the world. OSX is a vision of one man. Steve Jobs.

It is for these reasons that no open source attempts at making a technology like flash can reach the level flash has.  Steve knowns this, so rejecting Flash for the reasons stated is, in my opinion, a smoke screen.

As a developers, the big issue with the lack of Flash is the lack of cross development capabilities.  Flash is very popular, and right now, FLEX is one of the hottest programing languages around.  I personally have a lot of code I would like to drop onto the iPhone.  But right now, I have to go back to the drawing board and use javascript and a framework like Sproutcore.  That’s like asking a C++ programming he has to go back to BASIC.  It’s degrading.

Ultimately, one must concede that Apple has something up its sleeve.  And it was announced at WWDC with the feature list of Snow Leopard.  Quicktime X is likely to be more then a video engine.  I expect a new platform encompassing much of the features left out in the current restricted frameworks supported by Apple for the Web.  It is likely to be very standards friendly and cross platform (Windows, Linux, Apple)

One could even speculate that Snow Leopard is possibly an open version of OXS for any Intel based hardware.  A common rumour I like to push and feel would catapult Apple into a position where it really is competing with Microsoft.

As I am developing a application for my company right now, I decided to have a good look at the current state of play.

Currently we have buzz words like AJAX, CSS and FLEX. These terms relate to certain technologies. Following is a brief overview.

An application such as Google Mail, is a AJAX, CSS, Javascript type RIA. In my investigation, I find these implementations get very complex very quickly and are SLOW and buggy over different browsers. I personally feel AJAX, Javascript applications are extremely limited and can only archive limited functionality with complex development paths. This makes them expensive to develop and buggy.

FLEX is a RIA development platform based on Flash. FLEX is FlashPlayer based websites that are designed specifically for Application use. Flash (6,7,MX,CS3) has been forced into doing RIA by some hard core Flash users, but it was not terribly efficient. FLEX is designed specifically for this. Prototyping applications in FLEX is very fast. The new Actionscript3 is a great language and is now more strict in syntax. This leads to better and more maintainable code. Plus it is many times faster then Actionscript2, and as such, 100 time faster then Javascript. In real terms, it looks much more like a traditional application in that it runs in a window of set size and does not run over the page fold as most AJAX/Javascript RIAs do.

Still, an RIA needs more then a good interface builder. It needs backend.

Recently Adobe released “LiveCycle Data Services ES Express“. LCDS for short. This is a free version and has most likely appeared because amfphp and similar free source projects have been becoming extremely popular. LCDS is the latest release of what was once called FDS or Flash Data Services. It is cut down and cannot be used in Clustering or other enterprise applications. However, many developers do not need this. NOTE: This software was, until now, EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE to use. In the facinity for $10,000 for the full blown system. Ie per CPU. (Note: prices may be better now, but it was once said amount and more)

LSDS is a Java back end and plugs into all Java enterprise systems like JBoss, Tomcat, WebSphere, etc. It does come with JRun out of the box.

I am quite amazed that this has completely been under the radar. Ad FLEX development and LCDS combination and you have an extremely powerful development platform to build applications of the future. Fast, effective Web interfaces that work much like applications running directly on the computer. Ad Adobe AIR, which lets you turn these web Applications into REAL applications with a build in data synchronization system. This is great stuff.

However, (Here they come), this feels very immature when I played with it in terms if integration and ease of use. Also, the knowledge set is quite wide, (But then again, I like to program backend and front end. Being a reasonable Flex, Actionscript3 coder AND a java coder is a big ask. Plus web developers must haves. PHP, perl and Linux knowledge.)

Finally, to bring all this together Adobe has shows a new technology code named “Thermo” See the video from MAX conference here. This is the killer application that will have Microsoft worried. DOT.NET is a great development environment and perfect for enterprise. However, Thermo brings the DESIGNER into the development team more then thought possible. With Thermo, you can turn Photoshop elements directly into interface components. Then design how they animate and layout on the screen. This is all done with a Photoshop like interface. This gives the Designer more control and also, when handing of to the coder, most of the hard work is already done. Adobe has really thought out of the square here.

Microsoft is not standing still. Silverlight has been rushed out and is a great technology. It is only early days. The RIA implementation is not as mature as FLEX. From what I hear, FLEX leaves it for dead right now. Its also hard to see it offering the Graphic designer integration that Thermo will bring.

The combination of these Adobe technologies (And new price points) , has Adobe in a position to become the dominant application platform for the Web. And as the Web is where most enterprise computing is going. Microsoft has a lot to loose.

Obviously there is a great need to bring this unabated use of mostly illigal content under control. Strangely enough, however, these tools are not available to the producer. Well, they are if they pay through the nose, or prostitute themselves to the gatekeeper incumbent players.

Still, I find this quite amazing as, can you imagine the internet without the open source Web server Apache? Without Open source product like WordPress? These tools have been the keys to the community growth of the internet. Strangely enough Streaming technology has been largely left behind.

This brings us to the opportunity. Imagine being a founding member of the programming team to go down in history for making that for which Apache has been for the internet, but for Video. The opportunity is now.

Lets have a look why.

Firstly lets get to the first question in you mind. “We are doing no now, for example Youtube and progressive download”. Simply serving web pages does not a web server make. Features like SSL must be a part of a Web server. As such, features that streaming and a form of SSL (One would call DRM) will obviously be part of a full featured Video server. These features will enable better experiences, more efficient control of the process and predominately better monitoring of who is using the content. (More on this later)

Recently the online video arena has been hotting up. The previously dominant player, Microsoft, has been pulling out all stops to grab back the online video market. There new product is called Silverlight. It is a great new technology from Microsoft. Looking at any demo of interest for this technology, it is always a Video application using Microsoft Media server as the back end. It is obvious that this technology is squarely aimed at Adobe/Macromedia flash.

Flash from Adobe/Macromedia as literally taken over the web. It has become the de facto standard for web video. (You see some Quicktime still Mainly from Apple, and near no Microsoft Video, unless the implementation is tied to it.) Adobe has also been reacting to Microsoft Silverlight. (Isn’t competition great.) Recent ground breaking developments in FlashPlayer betas has been two major additions.

1. The ability for hardware playback. This lets the flash player do full screen playback of video all the way up to HD 1080p.
2. Support for a SMPTE standard H.264 and AAC audio. This is the MP3 of video, OR, is the next big codec to replace the ubiquitous but older MPEG2 codec.

This pretty much has sunk Microsoft’s Silverlight boat but not completely. It is a different technology and has different strengths. Still, Microsoft will most likely come to the conclusion they will never be the ubiquitous technology the world uses for video. Still, they have there own walled garden to look after. (Xbox 360 online movies).

At the end of the day, the real issue on all of this is. “Who controls the back end.” The server. The funnel that all the content must go through. The Gatekeeper if you will? Well according to Adobe, that anyone who wants to pay $45,000 per server for FMS (Flash Media Server).

This is where it all falls down and why this technology has been so long coming. Adobe, Microsoft have been spending years marketing, formulating, manipulating the market, into a position in which it can become, at least a part of, the gatekeeper of content. And really, who can blame them. They are companies who are in it to make money.

But really, if anything, over the last few years, the Internet has shown us that if a technology gets in its way, it will find a way to bypass it. Looking at the current state of pirated content, some interesting topics have recently surfaced.

Anyone with there ear to the ground known it is easier to use Bit-Torrent to download a movie or TV show then it is to buy it off iTunes (And usually better quality). But not until recently, after the Apple and NBC public dummy spit (See this story), have larger respected journalists actually written articles stating this. And, to me, largely endorsing it by writing about it in this way.

Considering this, any content that plans to be sucessfully distributed over the web has to be able to compete with FREE. An example of this is in underdeveloped countries where you can purchase any movie you like for $2-3 dollars. Anyone trying to sell DVDs at typical western prices simply cannot compete so don’t even bother. And this will be the case for the internet.

I make a point of this as, Adobe or Microsoft clipping the ticket just so you can server your media is unlikely to work within this equation. At the fact that a streaming server is not really the hard part here. Its establishing the standad platform that flashplayer with H.264 is.

FMS3, due out early Q1, 2008, will supply this platform, using, what I expect to be (Any input from people who know appriciated) a proprietory implementstion of a streaming protocal with a control protocal and SSL/DRM implementation on top. Adobe have gone all OPEN SOURCE recently, but from what I understand, not in this area.

Still, these proprietory API’s can be reverse engineered legally, and open source can supply the same or part there of, feature set. This is inevitable, but until then, Adobe will be milking it for all they can.

Before I conclude, I want to polish up the DRM/SSL issue a little here. Many people are completely against DRM. This is understandable, however, for the future of Video distribution on the internet to be full of interesting and compelling content, methods to encourage users not to copy content, or simply to track that every time they watch the content, they got to the source and are counted. These tools can be used in a way that does not hinder a viewer but improves the opportunity for the producer to get a return on an expensive business or put more money into a production making better content. How would you feel if content like ER, Heros, could only be made to look at good as lonlygirl15? This comparison is a little over the top, but I hope carries the message as to why, like SSL is to a Webserver, DRM is to a Video Server.

Finally we get to the opportunity. Who is going to implement the open source Streaming server? Well, if your a coder, and what to go down in history, it could be you.

Lets first have a look at “Open Source DRM”. GPL3 has included some anti-DRM provisions. (See THIS) Some well known pundits of GPL (Ie see THIS story about Linus Torvalds) have written about how DRM and open source cannot integrate and are at odds with each other. This could be considered an idealistic approach as is a utopian society. Both, I fell are not realistic.

Some exampled of DRM that we use in our every day life, and completely accept are;

1. Software Protection. It is commonly cracked, however, few if any disagrees with the idea. GPL pundits have not complained about commercial software having copy protection while running on LINUX.
2. OpenPGP, DES, OpenSSL and countless other encryption tools based on open standard and used to protect commercial and non-commercial tools and information every day.
3. Distribution of a content in NON-digital form. I consider this a form of DRM as it helps control the distribution of content. For example, a vinyl record, due to the fact you had to purchase a lot of equipment and time to produce a copy. Also, the latest Harry Potter book that was scanned and distributed. Some one still has to go through the process of scanning the book and preparing it. This takes time and has no reward. The Harry Potter book may have had enough hype around it for this happen but most will not.

It is important to point out here that DRM, by its nature, will always fail. Be it simply by the fact that at some point it has to go back to analog, as out eyes and ears are analog. Any analog signal can be copied. DRM, by the current incumbent players, due to the overwhelming fact that it has a loosing battle, has been implemented in such a way as to make the legitimate and paying end user feel like a criminal. “Down with DRM” is found tagged on forums around the web.

Lets now have a look at a real life example of an OPEN DRM. This DRM is just as important, if not more important then any DRM we are using on the internet. It is called DCI. (Digital Cinema Initiative.) The website contains a specification which describes how movies will be distributed in DIGITAL format. Ie, in the best possible distribution format currently available. This video format is JPEG2000, and the encryption is AES-128. This is, to all intensive purposes, an OPEN DRM. It is based on a non-proprietary encryption. It has been in use for a number of years.

What I am leading up to here is that DRM is a tool and not a solution. Realistically, the objective here is to:

1. Introduce an inconvenience of making unauthorised copies of media.
2. Help the end user understand that the media has value and cannot be treated the same as a typical file as far as simply popping on a P2P.
3. Encourage the user to respect the the fact that media has a cost involved and needs to have some type of payment involved to watch/listen. (Ie advertising, promotion or real payment)

This should be possible while, at the same time, providing the media consumer with a pleasant and rewarding experience. The degree of media restriction will be varied depending on the model and consumers expectations.

I would hope I have a resonable position here, and if so, what next.

What we need now, and what I hope to encourage, is the implementation of an OPEN DRM based on open source software which is a simplified version of what one could call a DRM. The objective is to totally remove the “Gate Keeper” and his inflated costs from the distribution chain.

(An example of a Gate Keeper: Apple Itunes or any on-line shop. These organisations take a large proportion of the media sale and are justified as they bring to the table marketing, of which you could do yourself, and media protection or DRM, of which you cannot, and therefore are more likely to use them.)

Lets look at the new Web-Joost player. (And here is where I get technical)

Web-Joost is an impressive proof of concept. Now, if we could implement a social networking module behind the application which replaced the Marketing portion (Ie like a digg.com), then allow the producers to host there own content and implementing an individual custom key and encryption.

For example, the Producer could select a common encryption like AES, then write or modify a module that generated the KEY. This could be done individually for every piece of media. In the end we would have a DRM that would not be that hard to crack, however, every piece of media would have to be cracked individually. Ie, this would mean,anyone wishing to crack a lot of media would be spending all him time cracking. Not Crack once then a free for all like DVD.
This is near feasible with Web-Joost, Flash, and Actionscript 3. From my understanding, however, is is likely not possible.

Microsoft Silverlight (Still in Beta), very similar to FLASH, may have the legs to do this.

However, Adobe and Microsoft are unlikely to support these moves as they have business modems which are trying to make this market into there future cash cow. This is understandable. They are listed companies trying to maximise the returns to the investors.

To end up, I would like to point you at a company doing this now. www.jaman.com. This is an example of the implementation I describe but as a Web2.0 company, and not OpenSource.