Those of you based in the UK (and probably some of you who aren't) may have noticed some recent changes on the BBC website, in particular the update to the audio and video player which now uses Windows Media Player as well as Real Player (it used to be just Real). Steve Hermann, BBC News Editor, has now posted a reply to user comments and in particular he details why the BBC chose not to use Flash Video for its news stories. Reading in between the lines it seems that the overwhelming reason is cost due to the heavy investments the BBC has made into other platforms, infrastructure and so on, all of which related to non-Flash technologies.
The BBC streams a ton of video and audio content, both live and on demand. It would of course be a mammoth task to migrate this to Flash - and likely to be very expensive not only to set up but also to run - I hope Adobe takes note and considers loosening the licensing screw for Flash Media Server a bit.
One positive fact is the overwhelming push for Flash by the BBC website visitors, just check out the comments on this post. Wow, public opinion has definitely shifted towards Flash and most readers appear to agree that Real sucks, WMP is ok-ish (if you're not on a Mac) and that Flash would be a very welcome addition, backed by the already existing platforms.
Hermann agrees that Flash Video would be up for the job, both in quality and penetration, but that timing was bad as the BBC is essentially set up for Real and Windows Media and not for (streaming) Flash Video.
I really feel that Hermann would use Flash in a second if he could but unfortunately the BBC is a huge organization and they must generate some ROI on behalf of license fee payers for their Real and Windows Media investments, and that's understandable. I think they call this a tie-in :-)
No more watching the news at work (I'm on Linux) or on my mobile (Symbian), for instance :-(
I also remember an interview with the BBC managers where emphasis was placed on regional and timing pricing/access differences... people outside the UK should have different access than UK taxpayers, and archival material might be used to support the overall service... I haven't been able to retrieve that interview through search, however. These rights-management issues didn't come up in Hermann's post, though.
Now that the tie-in period has expired, the BBC is contractually able to start exploring new technologies, but without a similar arrangement to Real Media I fail to see how it would be possible to finance any shift to Flash Video. The cost of the systems required to encode and serve the huge number of video clips created everday by News alone would most likely run into the 100's of thousands without sponsorship, but Adobe shouldn't write off the possibility of striking a deal. It would obviously be beneficial to the flash platform, and as the post on Steve Hermman's blog suggests, the BBC is open to suggestions that make financial sense and have public approval.
Now we (Red5) just need to finish our multi-server load balancing implementation so that the BBC and others can start using Red5 in huge production environments. We are certainly getting close.
"and an open source solution enables them to use Flash video"
I don't see any mention of open vs. closed source in the BBC's rationale for not using Flash. They are currently using Real and WMV, neither of which is open source.
Chris, I think what you're trying to say is:
"A free (as in beer) solution enables the BBC to use Flash Video without paying licensing fees to Adobe, possibly making their decision to Adobe FLV easier."
Let's not conflate OSS/Libre with Free-as-in-beer.
I don't see how Red5 will help the BBC encode their video archives into FLV. I don't see how Red5 will help them build out, test, and maintain a front end GUI. I don't see how Red5 will address the DRM concerns of the BBC. I don't see how Red5 will help train their network operations team on a new server platform.
You wrote:
"It also helps Flash/Adobe overall as it brings more users to the Flash platform increasing sales of the Flash authoring tool and Flex Builder"
It also hurts Adobe as it takes away a potential FMS customer.
Lastly, IMHO, just as I note my employment with Adobe Systems in my sig, I think you should consider noting your ties with Red5 as you promote it, especially as you now stand to profit from its adoption via your consulting group. [http://blog.ff9900.org/?p=20]
-steve / Adobe Systems.
You make some very good points, and I certainly don't want to get into a pissing contest about this on Stephan's blog.
With that said however, there a few points that I want to make clear.
1. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm associated with Red5 in anyway. There's a link to my blog which tells the users who I am; I also mentioned this: "Now we (Red5) just need to finish our multi-server load balancing implementation". With that said, for clarity, I'm Chris Allen co-project manager of Red5 and I'm a partner in a consulting business focused on Flash, Flex, Java and Red5.
To be fair, I will also point out that you didn't present your last name in your post, so I, and others have no idea who you are. I find that to be problematic as well. "Some guy named Steve from Adobe said..." I can't really quote an anonymous Adobe spokes person.
2. It appeared that the issue surrounding BBC's decision had something to do with cost. And yes, not paying a license fee to Adobe would be helpful in this regard.
3. I think it's also helpful to BBC and others that Red5 is OSS/Libre as you put it. It does indeed assist them in creating a solution completely tailored to their needs. Implementing an encryption mechanism for DRM is one way, that currently wouldn't be easily done with FMS.
4. You are correct that it doesn't help BBC to create an infrastructure around the Flash platform directly, but the cost of the server along with its open nature does allow an easier entry into this realm. This is exactly my point. If they aren't willing to use Flash video because of the costs associated with FMS; it's certainly a good thing for Adobe that they begin doing it in an alternate way instead of not at all.
In closing, competition is good to the consumer. I'm very sorry that Red5 might adversely affect Adobe's bottom line in some ways, but hopefully it's made up for in the adoption of Flash overall. I have the deepest respect for Flash and Adobe as a company. Since the merger you guys have been extremely supportive of OSS, and I commend you on that.
I think the costs right now are not the costs that FMS would introduce (although they would likely be large) but the fact that any migration away from Real/WM would be costly.
Lastly I feel that the BBC actually likes the cosyness of proprietary software and I would be surprised if they chose Red5 over FMS even if money was not an issue. I don't mean to diss Red5 in any way here and I know that many people are eagerly awaiting a full release but some companies - and I see the BBC as one of them - would never put their cards on such a technlogy which is essentially unproven (right now at least). Even FMS is not matured, take live streaming for example.
I think Red5 would have to reach a certain status, you may call it a feel good factor, a bit like MySQL or Apache, before it will break into major players like the BBC. This is not to say that tons of others won't be quick to embrace it.
Time will tell I guess and I may be totally wrong... :-)
I totally agree that Red5 has a ways to go before it will be adopted by some of the big players. That's why I specified "in the future" in my first post.
I know that BBC does actually do a lot with open source software. There are even some Flash components that they built that are under an open source license. Take a look at their website for some information on their open source projects.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/
I could actually see the BBC being a contributer to Red5 in the future. It would certainly make sense for them in many ways, and would help us out tremendously.
Anyway, as you already mentioned only time will tell.
I totally hope that you are right, I just can't imagine it happening even with the BBC's history of open source. The video/audio streaming is just such a key tool in their offering that it would be highly unlikely to happen within say, the next 3 to 4 years.
But I consider the BBC a tougher nut to crack than most others so not to worry, the revolution is underway ;-)
Flash doesn't really support DRM per se but it is simple enough to tighten the security around Flash streams to simulate a DRM environment. One of the true advantages of Flash is the ability to interface easily with the video you are playing. Your ability to interface with WMP and Real are somewhat limited.
I also did not see if they were using a CDN which could greatly influence the pricing of using Flash video.
As far as encoding the FLV's, I'm sure they have got to be doing some form of enterprise transcoding there. Most likely dumping files out of Avid into a server farm of transcoders. The question begs, which software are they using and is Flash video an option?
Regarding Red5, I'm all for open source but sometimes corporations like the warm and fuzzies they get from buying an established proprietary and professional product. Support is a key issue here. If the product breaks, they want answers and they want support ASAP. IT people seem to like to have someone to yell at on the phone when a product breaks. You really don't get that with open source products.
I'll spare the details but suffice to say, the investment we made into our Flash Com Server more than paid for itself in a matter of months and gave the company quite an edge over their competitors.
on re-read, my comments were a bit short I was typing in between meetings, so my brevity may have come across rudely apologies.
My name is Steve Wolkoff I used to be the product manager for FMS (Im now in a new role at Adobe). I have usually stayed silent in the FMS/Red5 discussion because of my prior role, for fear that too much would be read into any comments. No need for a pissing contest as you said, competition is good, and this is a necessary discussion.
I (and others at Adobe) have spoken to the BBC extensively about their needs, so I feel pretty knowledgeable about this situation. I took some offense to what I felt was an implication that Red5 would simply solve all of the BBCs problems, if only you guys had feature x (load balancing, in this case). As I found out over and over again in my time with FMS, driving large entities such as the BBC to switch media formats is far, far more complex than server pricing or features x,y,z. To use the jargon, its about ecosystem supporting products, skills, tools, and services that make Flash Video a complete solution. In all likelihood, for a massive infrastructure that the BBC needs, the server pricing would be some kind of enterprise deal involving numerous products and services and a CDN for peak/failover, in which per server licenses were no higher than any competitor. The cost to the BCC is all of the other things I mentioned in my earlier post, and what Stefan just posted:
I think the costs right now are not the costs that FMS would introduce (although they would likely be large) but the fact that any migration away from Real/WM would be costly.
Thats exactly right.
Also, I dont see how this statement holds water:
Implementing an encryption mechanism for DRM is one way, that currently wouldn't be easily done with FMS
Stream encryption is not DRM. Not sure what Red5 offers here that FMS doesnt. The problem is in the Flash Player which only supports socket level stream encryption (RTMPS) (Im using scare quotes, because I dont necessarily see the lack of a DRM mechanism in Flash Player as a problem), and Red5 still has to stream down to the Flash Player.
-steve. / Adobe Systems
Thanks for the response.
You said: "Stream encryption is not DRM. Not sure what Red5 offers here that FMS doesnt.
This is true. Stream encryption is just another possible way to make it harder for someone to rip off the content. It's not true DRM and as you already pointed out we are all targeting the Flash player.
I am more or less referring to the fact that you can easily modify Red5 to do very specific things. You can tap into virtually any existing library for Java using the Spring application context. DRM, was admittedly a bad example. It wouldn't be true DRM. It also doesn't sound like DRM was of much concern for BBC anyway.
Thanks very much for telling us a little more about BBC's thinking in regards to the Flash video decision. I certainly didn't, and still don't think that Red5 would solve all of their problems. Perhaps it would just solve a couple of them.
I guess the big reason that BBC didn't choose Flash video, they don't have enough FMS experts inside their teams. It's hard to sell if they donot familar with your products, whatever you're the best solution or not. They should have hired some experts in real/mms, which they could have many experiences on those, and they could refuse to learn new technologies that means they will lose their job.
I know in the end it's about the ROI - which makes me curious, have you (or anyone reading) ever seen any side-by-side comparison of the cost of maintaining your own streaming server vs. using a CMS like Akamai or Vital Stream?
Cheers,
Michael Kaufman
Actually, and unfortunately, DRM/content protection is a MAJOR concern for the BBC. They are a semi-autonomous public corporation that receives revenue from the public. As part of their charter, they have to carefully restrict who can view their content, especially when their content may "compete" with fully private companies. DRM allows them to lock down who can see content, when they can see it, and from where they can access it.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC for more info.
Michael is right - in the end, it comes down to ROI. BBC has a tremendous sunk cost in the existing WMP/Real infrastructure.
In addition, the BBC doesn't display advertising of any form on their websites. Greater audience reach (thus greater advertising inventory) and interactive advertising are two of the major selling points of Flash Video.
However, as the BBC has recently spoken of plans to sell advertising that would be displayed to non-UK visitors[1], they will likely look at Flash Video again.
1. http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/articl...
But a CDN cannot host your fancy video-plus-other-features type Flash app - they only push video. So for now they are not suited for all FMS deployments, but they are definitely useful for on demand (and soon live) Flash streaming.
http://www.videodetective.com/
DRM isn't as much an issue for us, since we don't offer VOD, video chat, etc. Just plain ol' movie/tv trailers as a sales tool.
Can't give specific details but, it's a site with millions of mainstream consumers, our marketing and tech groups are open to it, but they don't want to host video in-house or run a streaming server themselves.
perhaps Flash video enthusiasts can launch a campaign to pressure Video Detective to adapt Flash video streaming via VCS, Wowza, FMS, Red5, whatever.
I am told that it works with pre-encryption of the FLV file so you may use it in a CDN, with or without a FMS.
has anyone heard about this?
It seems there is one less hurdle for the BBC that way.
I really believe that businesses must realize that DRM is neither working nor going anywhere. Just check out the latest announcement by EMI to distribute non-DRMed music via iTunes. They will not be the last.
Here's some further reading:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/03/emi_apple_...
I have a gut feeling that Adobe will be working on some sort of DRM solution for FLv and I am currently unconvinced that this is time and effort well spent.
You have to pay him an extra 30 cents to download a song without DRM...then you also have to consider that you would likely need to reformat the content to use it on another device.
Steve also announced the next day that he felt Video would still need DRM. Muisic went for years without any DRM it was a bit crazy to think that the music industry could put the genie back in the bottle. Video on the other hand has always required copy protection.
The problem is that Microsoft and Apple have placed draconian restrictions on content protected by their DRM. They used DRM to restrict the consumer to a format or platform. This is plain wrong and it is understandable that DRM gets broken.
I am told the company who is doing the DRM for Flash, has put the consumer first and has a multi-platform, multi-format solution...
It might be what DRM needed and what the broadcasters like BBC to be comfortable moving to Flash
Expect that they will announce a system locking you into the Flash Media Server.
ugh...another restrictive DRM
It is my understand that the studios went to Widevine due to their long history and confidence in Widevines DRM capabilities. They asked Widevine to add Flash video to its product media format support.
Widevine delivered in less then 6 months what Adobe/MacroMedia has been unable to do for several years.
Better then that when the major studios went to Widevine they did so knowing that Widevine would build the solution robustly and not restrict consumers or service providers to a technology or infrastructure.
It costs 50 cents or more to stream a Gigabyte of content on a CDN using the Adobe FMS.
Using alternative server technologies can reduce that cost to a few cents per GigaByte.
Look at an NBC or Fox who may stream 50 to 100 Million Gigbyes per month and you can see the cost savings Widevine offers over Adobe proposed DRM.
It is amazing to think that Adobe would even think to offer yet another DRM ala Microsoft and Apple that locks the entites in the value chain to the Adobe solution set.
Widevine is the only DRM that understands&DRM can be good if it provides Digital Freedom&NOT another ball and chain.
Let us hope Adobe is smart enough to pull next weeks launch of their DRM plans&
Oh and do not forget the key word is plans
No product yet from Adobe.