Adobe Introduces P2P Flash Player, Kills CDNs | Hacker News Reader

Adobe Introduces P2P Flash Player, Kills CDNs

whydoeseverythingsuck.com

53 pointspaulsb34 comments

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...

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..., 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.

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...

i agree, but they will also want you to run a pilot to see how it goes.

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.

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...

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.

> I think this is an issue of perception.

Exactly. So all there's needed is to tell them there's a traditional CDN framework in a hot standby, just in case this novel ultra low cost CDN experiences any operational problems.

> There's simply no way a large blue chip will be happy with the design philosophy of p2p delivery.

Maybe they'd start crying about piracy upon hearing the term "p2p" ?

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...

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.

How is BitTorrent's allegedly poor QoS an engineering issue?

BitTorrent's QoS is a function of reachable peers who have the content you want and their bandwidth. This applies to all P2P networks.

i would say that bitTorrent's are better performing than an overloaded client server transmission.

at least you have a fighting chance, i would say thats pretty good QoS

Akamai is moving towards P2P CDN too. Not as a replacement to what they have, obviously, but still it's indicative of the overall trends in CDN segment.

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)

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

ahh thanks.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Point taken. I really hadnt thought of things like linux distros. Was thinking more of movies tv shows etc.

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!

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).

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

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

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

recently i learned of Verizon's FiOS which has multi-Mb upload rates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS

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.

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?).

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.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com