PDA

View Full Version : Adobe Media Player Released with Adobe TV


cavekid
04-09-2008, 08:10 PM
Looks like Adobe's wading into the media player battle with it's own offering, and it has a few large networks onboard with it:

http://www.adobe.com/products/mediaplayer/

CIM
04-09-2008, 11:49 PM
Looks mediocre. Plus, you have to install AIR.

I'll stick to VLC and go to Hulu if I want video clips.

Szos
04-10-2008, 01:12 AM
:yawn:

What's the point of this?
Do we really need another media player?
What advantages does Adobe's offering have over any other player?

Don't see the point at all.... all I see is one more piece of software that you are going to get 'forced' into installing next time a new version of Photoshop or Illustrator comes out.

P_T
04-10-2008, 01:38 AM
What's the point of this?I'd have to ask the same thing... They already have flash video player, why not improve on that instead of developing a new one? If it's because everyone can rip flash streamed videos, you'd think by now they'd be disillusioned enough to know it'll always happen.

swardson
04-10-2008, 04:46 AM
Is this something I can download and install on my website to play personal .flv videos?

As near as I can tell it is just a replacement for flash player to try and compete with youTube or something?

Brad

ngrava
04-10-2008, 06:56 AM
"Adobe Media Player brings advertising to video and the PC desktop. Track both online and offline impressions to fine-tune the effectiveness of your campaigns."

Finally! This is just what I always wanted! :cry:

I think that right now everyone and their mother is trying like hell to compete with Apple and iTunes. Basically, none of the major media companies wants to play by Apple's rules. Some are doing fine while others are seething over it while others see fit to strike out on there own. So, each one is trying to introduce their own brand of iTunes or at leaset some way of making money off of digital content; Amazon, NBC, Microsoft, Motorola etc. and now Adobe. What makes it so funny to me is that it always comes off as a blatant act of greed. They say it's because they want more control over the price of the media but really, it just means they want to charge you more for it. What happens when they do have control over the price? do you think they actually want to lower it? And, notice that Adobe TV is a subscriber based system. Meaning, like all subscriber systems, they will make money off of it regardless of whether you use it or not.

The funny thing about all of this is that if anything, iTunes has somehow become stronger and stronger and not weaker and weaker from all of this increased competition. Which, by way of all the attention it gets, makes sense because you know, there's no such thing as bad press. ;) I think Apple was really smart to be the first ones to market with digital distribution. You gotta give them cred for not being greedy pigs about it. Especially when you consider that they have kept to their word and not raised the price of music and videos since they introduced iTunes. It's Apple's system and all the the others have only themselves to blame for ignoring digital distribution until now. wether or not it's an accurate reflection of reality, Apple comes off as being the guys who just want to keep the price low and other the others come off as being the guys who want to rase it. :D

Another thing is that when the next version of Apple TV comes out, it's going to be huge and a bit of a paradigm shift for some people. I think that other huge media companies are aware of this and really worried about it. Think of iTunes meets Tivo meets youtube, online games, network TV, Cable TV and movies on demand all in one box. You would either be crazy not to join in and make what money you can or crazy to try and oppose it. I don't know which one is a bad thing. ;)

I can understand opposing Apple in principal. Monopoly is never a good thing. However, if your reason to try and break up a monopoly is just so that you too and charge more and profit over it... well, that doesn't come off as being good for anyone but yourselves. As it is now, Apple does offer others the chance to make money off of iTunes. It's just not the "Hand over fist" way of making money they the big media companies are used to.

Kai01W
04-10-2008, 10:19 AM
I can understand opposing Apple in principal. Monopoly is never a good thing. However, if your reason to try and break up a monopoly is just so that you too and charge more and profit over it... well, that doesn't come off as being good for anyone but yourselves. As it is now, Apple does offer others the chance to make money off of iTunes. It's just not the "Hand over fist" way of making money they the big media companies are used to.

Pretty apple centric view. I'd guess that apple simply does not make their money with itunes but rather with the hardware to play it with. no surprise they try to keep the prices for music down. sorry, i'm rather sure its just the same kind of greed...
I agree though on your comment on how we ever waited for more options to be tracked for advertising...

-k

mustique
04-10-2008, 12:47 PM
Adobe has it's own ambitions like every company but I don't want that thing!

Problem is we'll get that "me too app" through other adobe apps installed just like "Adobe Stockphotos" and a couple of other adobe bloatware.

I'm still wondering why adobe hasn't got a internet browser though.
it's like they've got all the nice cars but no garage.

jbradley
04-10-2008, 01:00 PM
Looks like Adobe's wading into the media player battle with it's own offering, and it has a few large networks onboard with it:

http://www.adobe.com/products/mediaplayer/

Not really recent news, but interesting to see it show up on CGtalk.

AMP (Adobe Media Player) is just the AIR delivery mechanism (built on Flash Player, of course) for viewing video content and downloading it for offline viewing.

The real reason for it's existance is for Adobe to market it's new Right Management Server and Flash Media Interactive Server. With at a starting cost of around 40k for the Rights Management platform and approximately 2-3k for the Flash Media Interactive Server, the solution is clearly targeted toward larger organizations that want to monetize their content. The AMP application is the delivery mechanism for that content, allowing conmpanies to track and limit usage of that content. IE - download tv shows from FOX networks, view them offline and FOX would have control over the use of that media (where, when and how long the media is allowed to be played/used).

Another poster asked why AMP should exist if Flash Player is already out there. The reasoning above is the primary focus. The Flash Player (as a browser plugin) doesn't have any system-level API and will not, in the known future, offer the capability to handle DRM content through Flash Media Server and Rights Management Server. So, that's where the AMP application comes into play.

I just thought I'd add my 0.02 on what it is and why Adobe is marketing it.

richcz3
04-10-2008, 05:06 PM
Ok rather than knock it without trying it - I gave it a go.

Media Player was probably a bad thing to call it. The first two times I've used it so far I couldn't figure how to play anything on my local system.

The TV aspect of it makes more sense. It looks like Adobe is including both commercial network and independant programs for viewing by theme/catagory. Old Twilight Zone Episodes. Current PBS - Nova and Frontline and Network TV programming. Um ... they throw in 30 second commercials on episode breaks (Twilight Zone). So I guess this is their revenue method.

The layout is sparse and doenst size down along the width. For being as basic as it is needs allot of work but then again its v1.0. Navigating needs more attention. I can't imagine people are going to click on the top header.

L.Rawlins
04-10-2008, 05:18 PM
I'll pass.

I use VLC because I want a 'Mass Media Player'. I don't want or need yet another proprietary software on this or any other machine to play a couple of sparse formats or streaming protocols every now and again.

Added to that the sheer amount of resources used by the likes of VLC's proprietary competition and I have to say I certainly won't be jumping ship any time soon, despite its admittedly horrid interface.

I think we all want the media player. Not a media player. This just seems like yet another one in the long line of the latter. I'd be far more interested in this if the DRM clad RSS-esque protocols that achieve what is touted on the Adobe website were pushed to the players that already exist.

A '.amp' plugin would I think be welcomed with open arms for the convenience and service Adobe illustrate. The 'Adobe Media Protocol' if you will.

P_T
04-10-2008, 05:19 PM
Another poster asked why AMP should exist if Flash Player is already out there. The reasoning above is the primary focus. The Flash Player (as a browser plugin) doesn't have any system-level API and will not, in the known future, offer the capability to handle DRM content through Flash Media Server and Rights Management Server. So, that's where the AMP application comes into play.Thanks for answering that, it makes sense... for a media distributor. For a consumer though, not so much, seeing as how people hate to be restricted and all.

I'd personally pick physical media over all these "rights management" crap.

aaraaf
04-17-2008, 01:13 PM
Personally, I'm glad to have some other people out there trying to get online video viewing stronger and more standardized.

If I missed Heroes and watched it online, there was one player, on ABC's site there is another. It's not that big of a deal, but something more unified would work well. Especially if I can get rid of the borders and actually watch it full screen.

iTunes isn't the only answer. There are many, many people who dislike it, and why should I pay for a TV show when they can toss some advertising in and make it free for me to view? I've paid for shows before, and really like the XBox for it, so this is something that I don't mind doing to catch a show. For a long while it had the best resolution to it.

Plus the last couple of flv codecs have been pretty crisp.