4 ms·

Adobe Introduces P2P Flash Player, Kills CDNs

53 points by paulsb 18y ago

gojomo 18y ago
Wow, Hank finds something that doesn't suck! Circle this day in your calendars. I agree this is big -- at least for P2P. And if it doesn't immediately put CDNs at risk, while the kinks are being worked out... give it time. Think about how long awkward web video muddled along before finally Adobe FLV, plus a critical mass of broadband adoption, caused video usage to explode. When Adobe first dropped hints about bundling P2P capabilities, over a year ago, I called it 'Adob2p' [1]. Then, as now, I think the big question is whether the resulting p2p distribution capability will be open to anyone with popular content, regardless of license or commercial status, or if Adobe will try to collect a toll per byte transferred. [1] http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2007/01/adob2p-can-adobe-do-for-web-p2p-what.html http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2007/01/adob2p-can-adobe-do-for-w...
maxklein 18y ago
There is a major flaw. A flash-based P2P network is only available among people who have their browser open at that very moment. So it cannot replace torrents because people don't leave their browsers open to seed for other people. When they are done, they close their browsers. And from what I understand of the spare documentation, closed source clients are going to need to pay license fees to interact with this P2P network. And did you happen to notice the "Secure Media" part of the protocol? This is a DRM encumbered, Non-Commercial, GPL infected protocol. I don't think it will be very successful.
- hank777 18y ago
  Huh? 1. This is not about replacing torrents. There wouldn't be much economic impact in that since that stuff is already stolen and in any case torrents are not on any CDN network. The point is that sites like youtube, hulu, and any other flash based video services (almost everything) will be able to operate at radically lower costs. 2. DRM has nothing to do with this protocol. You can implement DRM if you want. Its a separate layer. And many of the key content providers will want protection over their streams. 3. I dont know why it is "Non-Commercial" and "GPL infected" I don't know what that means. I would suggest that torrents are non commercial since there are no businesses offering their content via torrents and making money. That is, I believe, the definition of "commercial". 4. The issue of browsers needing to be open is a real one, though that only effects the level of effectiveness (i.e. cost savings). Most services deliver the most popular content most frequently. So at any given time, someone who's browser is open likely has all of or a part of a file that you want.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - TFrancis 18y ago
    Could this be a replacement for torrents? I don't understand why someone couldn't write a BitTorrentish client in Flash/Air. It could really lower the barrier to entry for many people. Have you tried explaining how to use the BitTorrent protocol to a lay person? Seriously, if the Pirate Bay offered an in browser Flash based P2P client that was interoperable with other BitTorrent clients, that would really shake things up. Personally, I don't believe that keeping the browser open is really that much of a problem. I keep Meebo and GMail open all day. It's been said, Firefox is the new Emacs; just another operating system.
  - tsuraan 18y ago
    "I would suggest that torrents are non commercial since there are no businesses offering their content via torrents and making money." Well, there's the marginally profitable World of Warcraft, which uses bittorrent for content distribution (http://www.blizzard.co.uk/wow/faq/bittorrent.shtml http://www.blizzard.co.uk/wow/faq/bittorrent.shtml). Most linux distributions also offer their content through bittorrent, although I'm not sure how profitable they tend to be. I'm pretty sure some of the linux companies make money though.
    - hank777 18y ago
      Point taken. I really hadnt thought of things like linux distros. Was thinking more of movies tv shows etc.
- poppysan 18y ago
  Actually the new flash player allows direct access to your computer for processing and cacheing. There may be some privacy issues along the road ahead, but your browser does not need to be open necessarily. Hopefully they can iron this out before launch!
smoody 18y ago
i think there are going to be bumpy times ahead for P2P-based companies that depend on a limitless supply of upstream transfer bytes from a home. upstream bandwidth seems like the scarce commodity and it is just a matter of time before it is throttled back. my humble opinion, of course. i have a vudu box and when i'm not using it, it is always disconnected from the net because i don't want to be throttled by my cable service provider (or, more likely, not have it throttled but wonder if it is being throttled every time there's a slow down).
- jdavid 18y ago
  this can be solved by using a real ISP that does not oversell as much, instead of cheap comcast,timewarner, or att
  - LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
    Unfortunately, getting such an ISP is prohibitively expensive for many consumers. And regional monopolies lock in the rest.
    - mleonhard 18y ago
      It costs $20 extra per month in Seattle: http://www.inwa.net/ http://www.inwa.net/
- tokipin 18y ago
  recently i learned of Verizon's FiOS which has multi-Mb upload rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS
prakash 18y ago
The typical Hank article I read is pretty well balanced and reasons out things logically. Not this one, it seems to be completely overblown, but that's nothing new, since the death of CDN's have been predicted for the last several years due to a new entrants in P2P technologies. If you want a balanced take on P2P and CDN's, read the article and comments on Dan Rayburn's blog: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2008/04/p2p-vendors-str.html http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/200... The CDN market is probably close to 1 billion $ and the major players are not going anywhere. To get an understanding of the future of CDN's read this interview with one of the co-founders of Panther Express: http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=450&doc_id=149694 http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=450&d..., where he claims that the Future of CDN's is http. I have no idea how Adobe's P2P technology works, each P2P company seems to have a different approach to content delivery. Disclosure: I have worked for a couple of CDN's in the past.
dabeeeenster 18y ago
People use CDN's because they want increased quality of service. I don't see how using p2p technology gives you a decent QoS. If I told my clients (the large blue chips that ask about CDN's, anyway) that we won't be using Akamai, but instead will be relying on a brand new p2p network they would walk away laughing...
- jdavid 18y ago
  i agree, but they will also want you to run a pilot to see how it goes.
- hank777 18y ago
  Actually, the two companies I mentioned - Kontiki and Red Swoosh have amazing QOS. Bit Torrent sucks for that, but it is an engineering issue, not an architectural or conceptual one. Akamai actually acquired red swoosh, and is integrating it into its platform as, I think, a defensive move. But clearly, the kings of the CDN world understand that a widely deployed well engineered p2p network will have an impact.
  - bluelu 18y ago
    Huge P2P networks for large content distributions will never work, as the internet isn't build for that. Imaging everyone would be driving directly to the farmer to buy egs or milk. The roads would be crowded. A centralized technology is much more effective. (also in terms of energy saved) PS. Video sites are probably going to integrate this technology soon...
    - poppysan 18y ago
      Actually your point works for P2P not a centralized solution. A centralized server is 1 rd vs a P2P highway of a undetermined amount of decentralized servers(roads). I believe that the answer is not a centralized solution or a P2P solution in my opinion. Maybe a hybrid network of well placed server farms that utilize a form of controlled P2P with authorized hosts. This avoids the legal/protection issues, yet extends the power of central solutions.
jdavid 18y ago
I am excited about the typography and the new graphics engine. i wonder if their font engine is faster than ours is already in flash.
Tichy 18y ago
Was it not possible before to create, say, a bittorrent client in Flash? Not sure what Flash was capable of (I know it can network, but maybe only HTTP?).
- jdavid 18y ago
  there are some direct connection things you could do if you were using adobe's servers, but at this point flash should be a much more flexible webtool than java.
- wmf 18y ago
  It was not possible, since Flash Player cannot listen for incoming connections, and can make outgoing connections only under limited circumstances.
breck 18y ago
Slow down a minute. I can't find a single thing on Adobe's website about P2P?? Where is this mentioned? (I could be blind, am reading it on the phone)
- jdavid 18y ago
  its in the UDP packets. because there are now TCP and UDP packets someone could build a p2p network.
  - breck 18y ago
    ahh thanks.
  - wmf 18y ago
    Not necessarily. For example, Flash Player cannot listen for incoming TCP connections at all, and it can only open new connections to a server if the server has a cross-domain policy allowing it. If similar restrictions are in place for UDP then P2P may not be possible. However, Amicima's technology was P2P VoIP, so I would not be surprised if the P2P aspect has been retained. But P2P VoIP is still completely different from P2P file transfer.
tlrobinson 18y ago
So CDNs may lose some customers that use Flash, but that's about it. This doesn't help anyone who just wants standard HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and images.

53 points by paulsb 18y ago

Wow, Hank finds something that doesn't suck! Circle this day in your calendars. I agree this is big -- at least for P2P. And if it doesn't immediately put CDNs at risk, while the kinks are being worked out... give it time. Think about how long awkward web video muddled along before finally Adobe FLV, plus a critical mass of broadband adoption, caused video usage to explode. When Adobe first dropped hints about bundling P2P capabilities, over a year ago, I called it 'Adob2p' [1]. Then, as now, I think the big question is whether the resulting p2p distribution capability will be open to anyone with popular content, regardless of license or commercial status, or if Adobe will try to collect a toll per byte transferred. [1] http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2007/01/adob2p-can-adobe-do-for-web-p2p-what.html http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2007/01/adob2p-can-adobe-do-for-w...

maxklein 18y ago

There is a major flaw. A flash-based P2P network is only available among people who have their browser open at that very moment. So it cannot replace torrents because people don't leave their browsers open to seed for other people. When they are done, they close their browsers. And from what I understand of the spare documentation, closed source clients are going to need to pay license fees to interact with this P2P network. And did you happen to notice the "Secure Media" part of the protocol? This is a DRM encumbered, Non-Commercial, GPL infected protocol. I don't think it will be very successful.

hank777 18y ago
Huh? 1. This is not about replacing torrents. There wouldn't be much economic impact in that since that stuff is already stolen and in any case torrents are not on any CDN network. The point is that sites like youtube, hulu, and any other flash based video services (almost everything) will be able to operate at radically lower costs. 2. DRM has nothing to do with this protocol. You can implement DRM if you want. Its a separate layer. And many of the key content providers will want protection over their streams. 3. I dont know why it is "Non-Commercial" and "GPL infected" I don't know what that means. I would suggest that torrents are non commercial since there are no businesses offering their content via torrents and making money. That is, I believe, the definition of "commercial". 4. The issue of browsers needing to be open is a real one, though that only effects the level of effectiveness (i.e. cost savings). Most services deliver the most popular content most frequently. So at any given time, someone who's browser is open likely has all of or a part of a file that you want.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- TFrancis 18y ago
  Could this be a replacement for torrents? I don't understand why someone couldn't write a BitTorrentish client in Flash/Air. It could really lower the barrier to entry for many people. Have you tried explaining how to use the BitTorrent protocol to a lay person? Seriously, if the Pirate Bay offered an in browser Flash based P2P client that was interoperable with other BitTorrent clients, that would really shake things up. Personally, I don't believe that keeping the browser open is really that much of a problem. I keep Meebo and GMail open all day. It's been said, Firefox is the new Emacs; just another operating system.
- tsuraan 18y ago
  "I would suggest that torrents are non commercial since there are no businesses offering their content via torrents and making money." Well, there's the marginally profitable World of Warcraft, which uses bittorrent for content distribution (http://www.blizzard.co.uk/wow/faq/bittorrent.shtml http://www.blizzard.co.uk/wow/faq/bittorrent.shtml). Most linux distributions also offer their content through bittorrent, although I'm not sure how profitable they tend to be. I'm pretty sure some of the linux companies make money though.
  - hank777 18y ago
    Point taken. I really hadnt thought of things like linux distros. Was thinking more of movies tv shows etc.
poppysan 18y ago
Actually the new flash player allows direct access to your computer for processing and cacheing. There may be some privacy issues along the road ahead, but your browser does not need to be open necessarily. Hopefully they can iron this out before launch!

smoody 18y ago

i think there are going to be bumpy times ahead for P2P-based companies that depend on a limitless supply of upstream transfer bytes from a home. upstream bandwidth seems like the scarce commodity and it is just a matter of time before it is throttled back. my humble opinion, of course. i have a vudu box and when i'm not using it, it is always disconnected from the net because i don't want to be throttled by my cable service provider (or, more likely, not have it throttled but wonder if it is being throttled every time there's a slow down).

jdavid 18y ago
this can be solved by using a real ISP that does not oversell as much, instead of cheap comcast,timewarner, or att
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  Unfortunately, getting such an ISP is prohibitively expensive for many consumers. And regional monopolies lock in the rest.
  - mleonhard 18y ago
    It costs $20 extra per month in Seattle: http://www.inwa.net/ http://www.inwa.net/
tokipin 18y ago
recently i learned of Verizon's FiOS which has multi-Mb upload rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS

prakash 18y ago

The typical Hank article I read is pretty well balanced and reasons out things logically. Not this one, it seems to be completely overblown, but that's nothing new, since the death of CDN's have been predicted for the last several years due to a new entrants in P2P technologies. If you want a balanced take on P2P and CDN's, read the article and comments on Dan Rayburn's blog: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2008/04/p2p-vendors-str.html http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/200... The CDN market is probably close to 1 billion $ and the major players are not going anywhere. To get an understanding of the future of CDN's read this interview with one of the co-founders of Panther Express: http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=450&doc_id=149694 http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=450&d..., where he claims that the Future of CDN's is http. I have no idea how Adobe's P2P technology works, each P2P company seems to have a different approach to content delivery. Disclosure: I have worked for a couple of CDN's in the past.

dabeeeenster 18y ago

People use CDN's because they want increased quality of service. I don't see how using p2p technology gives you a decent QoS. If I told my clients (the large blue chips that ask about CDN's, anyway) that we won't be using Akamai, but instead will be relying on a brand new p2p network they would walk away laughing...

jdavid 18y ago
i agree, but they will also want you to run a pilot to see how it goes.
hank777 18y ago
Actually, the two companies I mentioned - Kontiki and Red Swoosh have amazing QOS. Bit Torrent sucks for that, but it is an engineering issue, not an architectural or conceptual one. Akamai actually acquired red swoosh, and is integrating it into its platform as, I think, a defensive move. But clearly, the kings of the CDN world understand that a widely deployed well engineered p2p network will have an impact.
- bluelu 18y ago
  Huge P2P networks for large content distributions will never work, as the internet isn't build for that. Imaging everyone would be driving directly to the farmer to buy egs or milk. The roads would be crowded. A centralized technology is much more effective. (also in terms of energy saved) PS. Video sites are probably going to integrate this technology soon...
  - poppysan 18y ago
    Actually your point works for P2P not a centralized solution. A centralized server is 1 rd vs a P2P highway of a undetermined amount of decentralized servers(roads). I believe that the answer is not a centralized solution or a P2P solution in my opinion. Maybe a hybrid network of well placed server farms that utilize a form of controlled P2P with authorized hosts. This avoids the legal/protection issues, yet extends the power of central solutions.

jdavid 18y ago

I am excited about the typography and the new graphics engine. i wonder if their font engine is faster than ours is already in flash.

Tichy 18y ago

Was it not possible before to create, say, a bittorrent client in Flash? Not sure what Flash was capable of (I know it can network, but maybe only HTTP?).

jdavid 18y ago
there are some direct connection things you could do if you were using adobe's servers, but at this point flash should be a much more flexible webtool than java.
wmf 18y ago
It was not possible, since Flash Player cannot listen for incoming connections, and can make outgoing connections only under limited circumstances.

breck 18y ago

Slow down a minute. I can't find a single thing on Adobe's website about P2P?? Where is this mentioned? (I could be blind, am reading it on the phone)

jdavid 18y ago
its in the UDP packets. because there are now TCP and UDP packets someone could build a p2p network.
- breck 18y ago
  ahh thanks.
- wmf 18y ago
  Not necessarily. For example, Flash Player cannot listen for incoming TCP connections at all, and it can only open new connections to a server if the server has a cross-domain policy allowing it. If similar restrictions are in place for UDP then P2P may not be possible. However, Amicima's technology was P2P VoIP, so I would not be surprised if the P2P aspect has been retained. But P2P VoIP is still completely different from P2P file transfer.

tlrobinson 18y ago

So CDNs may lose some customers that use Flash, but that's about it. This doesn't help anyone who just wants standard HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and images.