
Adobe Introduces P2P Flash Player, Kills CDNs - paulsb
http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/05/adobe-introduces-p2p-flash-player-kills.html
======
prakash
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/200...](http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2008/04/p2p-vendors-
str.html)

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&d...](http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=450&doc_id=149694),
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
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...

~~~
hank777
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.

~~~
dabeeeenster
I think this is an issue of perception. There's simply no way a large blue
chip will be happy with the design philosophy of p2p delivery.

Whether it works or not is almost beside the point here...

~~~
Xichekolas
I think the only way they would buy into is if you avoid the evil three
letters "P2P" ... which is just code for 'lawsuit' to them.

Pull a marketing move and pitch it to them as end-user-content-assist or
something.

------
breck
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
its in the UDP packets. because there are now TCP and UDP packets someone
could build a p2p network.

~~~
wmf
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.

------
gojomo
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-w...](http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2007/01/adob2p-can-adobe-do-for-
web-p2p-what.html)

------
maxklein
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
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.

~~~
tsuraan
"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>). 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
Point taken. I really hadnt thought of things like linux distros. Was thinking
more of movies tv shows etc.

------
smoody
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
this can be solved by using a real ISP that does not oversell as much, instead
of cheap comcast,timewarner, or att

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
Unfortunately, getting such an ISP is prohibitively expensive for many
consumers. And regional monopolies lock in the rest.

~~~
mleonhard
It costs $20 extra per month in Seattle: <http://www.inwa.net/>

------
tlrobinson
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.

------
Tichy
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?).

~~~
wmf
It was not possible, since Flash Player cannot listen for incoming
connections, and can make outgoing connections only under limited
circumstances.

------
jdavid
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.

