General 05 Dec 2005 01:09 pm
Flash on CNN.com home page
It’s nice to see my favorite news destination, CNN, using Flash on their home page now. It’s a well-designed Flash “widget” that allows users to browse through a dynamic playlist of video content.
I can only give it a score of 7 out of 10 because, after clicking a link, it pops up a window and shows me this:
This is telling me that I need to upgrade to Windows Media 9 in order to watch video. I have two problems with this: the video is in Windows Media format and not Flash :-), and I already have Windows Media 10 installed.
Simple fix? Switch to Flash video and integrate the video playback into the playlist widget. This way nobody has to leave the home page, no windows need to pop up, and no 13.3MB video players need to be downloaded. Oh, and then you get a 10 out of 10. 
on 05 Dec 2005 at 1:52 pm 1.Danny Patterson said …
I wonder if DRM has anything to do with the decision to use Window Media.
on 05 Dec 2005 at 2:20 pm 2.Mike Downey said …
Probably. It could also have something to do with having massive libraries of content that would need to be converted to Flash video (there are automated solutions for doing this, btw).
Windows Media is the only player that seems to do DRM really well. We’ve been spending a lot of time recently looking at DRM solutions for Flash. One thing that seems to be a recurring issue is that a lot of people who talk about DRM don’t seem to know exactly what it is or what they want.
I’ll often get stopped at trade shows and conferences by people asking when we’ll provide DRM solutions for Flash. When I ask them to describe exactly what they’d like us to do, which isn’t already possible via Flash Media Server, they rarely have a detailed answer. In fact, the most common response I get it is, “just make it like Windows Media Player.”
The problem with that answer is that it’s hard to build solutions, prioritize features, and focus on the right use cases when we don’t have clearly defined requirements. Most of the content delivery networks we talk with tell us they just want to make sure that a user can’t save a video to their hard drive. This is already automatic when streaming video using the Flash Media Server.
On the other hand, some people want DRM that allows video content to be downloaded but forces the content to expire after a given amount of time. I don’t see this specific solution as a very relevant use case for Flash - for the time being, anyhow.
It’s hard to get this one right…
on 05 Dec 2005 at 2:26 pm 3.Danny Patterson said …
The Flash developer is rarely put into a position to make desicions on the video format. All we can do is make a case for Flash video. Most of the time we are shot down by lack of DRM support. Executives don’t care about the details, they just know their security consulants tell them to use Windows Media becuase of DRM support.
I agree with you the FMS solves many of the cases that I can think of, but I’m not a security expert. Perhaps Adobe should meet directly with the Movie Studios and News Organizations that continuely select Windows Media over Flash based soley on the DRM issue.
on 05 Dec 2005 at 3:29 pm 4.Mike Downey said …
It sounds like we may need to be more proactive in communicating the security/DRM solutions available to Flash for these IT professionals and executives that you mentioned. I agree that a lot of people just say they need their video to have DRM and they’ve heard that only Windows Media offers that - which is a communication problem not a technical problem.
Thanks for the thoughts on this one, Danny.
on 05 Dec 2005 at 8:33 pm 5.Kenny Bunch said …
Mike,
Thanks for the kind comments on the widget.
When you talk about DRM, you bring up a concern of every media organization in the world. They all want to protect their content. However, a downloaded DRM vs a stream involves drastically different costs. Seeing that the current solution in Flash would be streaming, you have to direct the dicussion around internal infrastructure, it’s associated cost, and cost of a whole new infrastructure. When I speak of infrastructure that can include many things like: specific servers, teams that support those servers, knowledge around those servers, etc. On the flip side costs can cover various costs like : cost of the server, cost involved in educating server teams, cost of serving content, cost involved with scaling, etc. Taking that into consideration, CNN serves massive amounts of content and has a proven infrastructure whose cost is known or can be known through experienced estimation. Switching from X to Y is not a simple and easy decision. Of course that’s not to say that either X and Y are better. It’s easiest to state that in the terms that if CNN thought WMV was better and had an infrastructure for Flash streaming video, the same principle applies.
Taking the video discussion aside, the CNN.com homepage is sacred ground. Every byte served makes a difference, especially in peak news periods. Therefore, the important news is that this marks the first time that there has ever been a Flash module that was a consistent homepage element. Why is this important? If the largest media site in the world is using Flash on their homepage then that says something for the platform and the trust people are putting into it.
In closing, all I can say is sometimes you have to take baby steps before you can run. Everyone wants to have a good experience. In some shape or form, I’ll get a 10 out of 10 from you
Kenny
on 06 Dec 2005 at 10:28 am 6.Kenny Bunch said …
FYI. Today the module is using a smaller size and is on the left side of the page vs the right. They do adjustments to it based on different situations.
on 06 Dec 2005 at 11:32 pm 7.Mike Downey said …
I’ll give you a 10 out of 10 for building a great widget and getting it up on the sacred CNN home page. I’ll give you an 11 if you can convince them to switch to Flash video.
I know other AOL/Time Warner properties have done this (AOL Broadband, RoadRunner, for example) so maybe you can use them as examples. The Comcast video experience also makes for a good example.
Cheers,
MD
on 07 Dec 2005 at 7:56 am 8.Kenny Bunch said …
Mike,
CNN actually handles other entities of Turner in terms of servers, etc. However, the others that you mention are not related in any true form to it.
11? I want it, but for the reasons I had discussed I can’t promise anything. Given the right circumstances it could happen.
Also, so you know…does Turner have capabilities for forms of Flash video in their automation process….
http://www.cnn.com/video/
(short enough clips that they don’t are about protecting the content)
on 07 Dec 2005 at 12:11 pm 9.Lora said …
I think DRM has the most direct attitude with the decision to use Window Media same it is obvious.
on 07 Dec 2005 at 1:46 pm 10.zombo said …
FoxNews.com uses Flash video… they’ve used it for some time now actually…
on 07 Dec 2005 at 4:50 pm 11.Mike Downey said …
Hmm… Not sure if CNN’s automation system supports Flash video, but I’m sure I could get them in touch with someone who could help them do so. Feel free to have someone contact me directly.
mdowney -at- macromedia.com
on 11 Dec 2005 at 2:46 am 12.Eugene said …
I don’t get such a warning window and don’t know why are you getting it. I’m using Opera, not IE
on 05 Jan 2006 at 5:44 pm 13.Rob said …
I just stumbled on this blog and have watched many of Mike’s presentations in the past.
Our company sells educational videos both online (streaming) and offline (CD/DVD-Rom). We would love to move to a entirely flash-based (GUI and Video) solution for online/offline and cross-platform delivery (PC/Mac/Linux); however, DRM protection is critical to us as we must provide an offline solution to our customers and we do deal with piracy issues often. Therefore, it seems that the MS DRM is the only solution that can meet our online/offline needs. I’m sure that there are many other companies that share the same issues. Will flash video every provide a solution for this scenario?
on 18 Jan 2006 at 12:19 pm 14.Randy Tinfow said …
We’re in exactly the same position as the prior lister, Eugene. We’ve got two seats of FMS, but our clients want to sell downloads. We need a Flash solution or we’re stuck with WMV.
on 18 Mar 2006 at 1:36 am 15.jules said …
Idem dito.
I always hear the same features coming back when it comes to deciding whether to use Flash video or Windows Media :
1. DRM support
2. Live streaming in On2’s video codec
3. Full screen video
(in that order)
I really hope Adobe is working hard on all three of these issues…
on 03 Nov 2007 at 3:41 pm 16.camelOne said …
Very nice this blog =)