There are alot of ideas/thoughts that have been expressed here about OS and Red5 in particular.
Red5 is simply providing services for the Flash client. We are having great success building an interoperable server for the Flash Platform and that is a HUGE win/win for MM, Adobe and Flash lubbers everywhere. I think our statements and position on transcoding are indicitive of the level of legal integrity we're striving for. Red5 is not an FCS replacement by ANY means. Just given the fact that we're not dealing with codecs is indication enough. And I think IE put it best in capturing what Luke and I have been saying: Red5 is a great stepping stone into the big leagues. It certainly will give worthy projects with little or no budget and opportunity to leverage functions of the player that would otherwise be out of reach.
In the end, MM embracing OS has been like a breathe of fresh air for me personally. If MM embraces Red5, they're popularity rating would sky rocket not only in my mind, but instantly around the world and it would only enhance thier bottom line with injecting more developers into the FCS stream.
Take AMFPHP, before that, you'd have a handful of devs who actually knew how to use remoting. Now, you have serveral times MORE devs that can walk into a situation where a client wants the commercial Remoting product and they can provide that service. Now it's a win/win, where as prior to that, the dev might have shot down the idea of remoting and opted for another backend solution enen though the client had the financial means.
Anyway, I'm hopeful.
On 10/26/05, The Irrelevant Elephant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
hank williams wrote:
> Ok, well, then we should stop the red5 project, because I am *sure*
> that MM doesnt like it. If they did, then no reverse engineering
> would be necessary. They would have already provided the protocol
> specs (years ago). The fact is they charge $4500 for a 10mps server
> that can serve mayber 30-40 quality streams at one time. They seek
> hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees from large scale
> customers. No sane software company would wish for a free alternative
> to this, and thus far from a business perspective they have not in any
> way signaled that they would like for there to be a free alternative
> out there.
Good point, however by the same token maybe it's *because* Macromedia
wish to keep charging a higher price for FMS that they will stand by and
let Red5 see the light of day without a fight. Large scale customers
/will/ purchase Macromedia's product - no matter how good Red5 is in
production. Also, Macromedia have plenty of ammunition to raise FMS
above Red5. For example, the Red5 team has already categorically stated
they will /not/ deal with codecs in any way whatsoever. Which means FMS
can introduce all kinds of stuff like transcoding, interoperatbility
with /other/ media servers and screen sharing. All stuff that Red5 will
not do. Red5 will always be FMS' b*tch ;-)
> This may be true. But again, I think a primary motivation (though not
> the only motivation) for red5 is the *outrageous* pricing model of
> fcs/fms. I dont think the red5 guys are going "gee if MM feels
> threatened maybe we shoulnt do this because they might not like us". I
> suspect strongly that MM will feel that red5 reduces revenue. Does
> this mean that the red5 guys are or arent concerned with the "plight"
> of adobe/macromedia, a 10+ billion dollar company?
I have to agree on that point. The primary motivation for Red5 was more
than likely the pricing model for FMS, but my points above still stand.
Red5 is for the people who wouldn't have bought FMS in the first
place. As stated by both Luke Hubbard and John Grden; Red5 is a
stepping stone for those to whom FMS is inaccessible.
Another illustration of the partnership that the open source community
is asking Macromedia for.
> As I said, whether it is purposeful or not, I think it is FUD, and I
> think it is problematic.
OK, you can have have that one .. it may be FUD without intent. I
wouldn't say it was problematic though, or we would not be having these
discussions. I wonder if you would have otherwise involved yourself in
the discussion had it not got this far :)
As you said yourself, it's better that these discussions come sooner,
rather than later :)
> Legal issues like this are life and death. I dont think there is any
> way to read too much into it. I judge by the act without regard to the
> underlying motive. If you shoot me, I dont care whether you really
> meant to hit some other guy. You still shot me.
Oh, you misunderstand me. I meant that I think you are reading too much
into the reasons Mike said what he said - not the legal issues themselves :)
- IE
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
--
John Grden - Blitz
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
