Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Could Adobe be open-sourcing Flash?

Over the years, Adobe has become more Linux friendly. First, Adobe released an excellent version of its Flash Player for Linux, and, more recently, the company launched a version of AIR (Adobe Integrated Runtime) for Linux. Now, however, with Strobe, its just announced Flash framework, Adobe looks like it may be getting more open-source friendly as well.

Strobe, which will show up in the 3rd quarter of 2009, is an open framework for creating SWF (ShockWave Flash) server-side players. With Strobe, content creators and Web developers will be able to easily create sites that host their own video.

According to the Adobe, Strobe will be teamed up with the Open Screen Project to create easy-to-deploy Flash players via a consistent runtime that will run on not just Linux, Mac and Windows PCs, but on all other platforms such as phones and televisions.

The Strobe-based players are to offer dynamic streaming and DVR functionality as well the usual Flash video goodies. Adobe also claims that Strobe will serve as "a foundation for the development of third-party plug-ins to provide functionality such as CDN (content distribution network) support, advertising, reporting, social networking, and interactive experiences."

Adobe knows that it's their claim to get in as the video infrastructure of choice in the ongoing battle between Hulu, Joost, Netflix, and everyone else who wants a slice of the Internet-based VOD (video on demand) universe. They need to make Flash technology open technology. What we don't know, however, and neither does Adobe it would seem, is exactly what they're going to open and how open it will be.

At this point, Adobe is claiming that Strobe will "offer free code and components that developers, partners, and customers can download from Adobe.com." But, what does that mean? In a conversation with Adobe engineers, I learned that Adobe has not decided on a license yet.

The intent, I'm told, is to make Strobe as open as possible. It's likely that there will be two versions of Strobe: an open-source version with basic functionality and a commercial one that comes with deployment support. In any case, Adobe plans to enable developers to work with Strobe with third-party tools as well as Adobe's own Flash tools like Adobe Flash CS4 Professional and Flex Builder.

To make sure that the Flash family beats out the likes of Microsoft's Silverlight and its Linux little-brother Novell's Moonlight, Adobe is also considering open-sourcing its flagship Flash player.

As part of the Open Screen Project, Adobe has already opened up much of Flash. For example, Adobe is supporting the Mozilla Foundation with the Tamarin Project. Tamarin is an open-source implementation of Adobe's ActionScript 3 language, which is Flash's scripting language. Adobe has also its own open-source Flash-related projects such as BlazeDS, a Java-based implementation of AMF (Action Message Format), which is used to integrated back-end DBMSs with Flash applications.

To really make Flash open, however, the video codecs within the SWF container format must be opened up. These codecs are On2 Technologies' VP6 and Sorenson Spark. While, there are already several good open-source Flash players, such as the Free Software Foundation's Gnash and Swfdec, none of them are truly feature compatible with Adobe Flash 10.

If Adobe really wants to knock out its competition, I highly recommend that it take the most open approach possible to Strobe and the entire Flash-family. This way, neither Microsoft nor any other would-be Internet media competitor, will be able to keep Adobe and its partners from dominating the tomorrow's broadband-dominated VOD world.

What People Are Saying

SVG and js vs AS3 flex

SVG with Javascript maybe able to reproduce the animation abilities of flash but javascript is iffy on different browsers. There is something to be said about write once run anywhere. As far as the server side goes it sounds good. I think it would be great for large flash arcades, video or other interactive media sites but does it have to be open? Open is great to increase your user base like when adobe opened up flex. But I think they want to get money from the licenses and the support of the software, so it may not be worth it to them to put the code out there. Not to mention the player is ubiquitous that is a hell of a selling point.

Adobe has a long term open source strategy

When it comes to the Flash Platform products, many people seem to continue to think its completely propriatory while for the last few years there has been an extensive move towards open source.

The new virtual machine of the Flash Player, called AVM2 was donated to the Mozilla foundation and is open source (likely to get used in a future release as an optimized ECMAScript rendering engine).

Flex, an XML based framework on top of ActionScript (the scripting language of Flash based content) went open source and has nightly builds you can get.

Flash Platform technology that is not open source is generally so for a reason -- and that reason most of the time is licensing. In the Flash Player they have some third party technology including things like cleartype and certain video and audio codecs that they can't release.
Since the announcement of the "Open Screen Project" all restrictions on creating your own Flash Player have been lifted. You can port the Flash Player without paying any licensing fees to your own platform.

The phrase 'server-side

The phrase 'server-side player' doesn't make any sense. The Flash Player is by definition a client-side technology and the Strobe project is just about simplifying the design of Flash video players. By encouraging users to link to a SWF hosted on your website, much like YouTube, does not in any way make it a 'server-side player'.

I'm not sure why you feel

I'm not sure why you feel that Adobe has to open-source those two older video codecs when h.264 is fast becoming the standard codec for HD video (supported by Quicktime, Flash and now Silverlight). The two codecs you mentioned are already fading into irrelevance so what's the point?

If Adobe really wants to

If Adobe really wants to knock out its competition, I highly recommend that it take the most open approach possible to Strobe and the entire Flash-family. This way, neither Microsoft nor any other would-be Internet media competitor, will be able to keep Adobe and its partners from dominating the tomorrow's broadband-dominated VOD world.

"This way" is not a reason. Hand-waving about open source solving all problem doesn't translate to reality.

Overall, pretty good

Pretty good article, but I'm quite sure Adobe won't open-source the player- they probably see no benefit and will just open up all the things around it so people can make their own.

I'd also like to point out that both of the codecs you mention (Sorenson & On2's) both have full support with FFmpeg- so it is possible to play all the videos currently.

With FF3.5, flash will be needed less

FF 3.5 will be able to play embedded OGG videos, without the need for any extra plug-ins. As more and more sites will start offering their videos in this format (along with flash apparently), there will be less "lock-in" to flash and silverlight(or moonlight Linux).

Just what I was thinking...

Assuming Firefox 3.5 ever manages to make it out of beta [yes, I'm impatient...] the built-in ogg vorbis/theora player and support for the <video> and <audio> tags would make much easier to put up video and audio content.

Never mind the player end, just putting flash content into a webpage involves the comparatively arcane <object> or <embed> tags, plus a source URL along the lines of "http://example.com/flashaudioplayer.swf?song_url=http://example.com/song.mp3&autoplay=false".

Compare to something like: <audio src="http://example.com/song.oga">If you had a modern browser there'd be an audio player here</audio>

As easy as an <img> tag...

If Adobe is really getting more open-source friendly it can only benefit them, but there's also an ease-of-use issue to deal with here.

Flash is more than just

Flash is more than just video and audio and people do use it for various things (like those Flash games). Personally I think the games should be Java instead, but different browsers handle Java differently. Other options include PostScript or PDF (also from Adobe), but they're not intended for such purposes and would be awful solutions.

By the way, what is the latest news on Silverblight/Moonblight? I hope they're dying quickly.

Flash can be replaced by existing tech

Yes, the HTML5 <video> tag willโ€”hopefullyโ€”help us replace awful Flash-based video. But as you say, Flash is more than that.

We can replace the vector graphics with SVG. Simple animations can be handled with SVG's facilities or (perhaps) with SMIL. Complicated animation and interactivity can be done through JavaScript, which can take the place of ActionScript. The only problems remaining are to finish the in-browser implementation of SVG (Firefox and Opera, IIRC, and maybe Safari too, are leading the way with thisโ€”IE will probably be last to the party again) and to create an IDE like the one Flash uses, to allow creators to make these things without having to manually hack animation into their creations (many vector drawing programs already implement SVG well).

So the sooner all that can replace Flash, the better. However, this would be acceptable in the meantime. I'll bet the code is crap. It's never been 64-bit-clean, because people have been asking for that for a while, and I haven't heard of anything to suggest that they're going to have one soon.