TheRealTimeWeb.com: Flex Whiteboard Component for RED5 Now Available

Flex Whiteboard Component for RED5 Now Available

Posted by Stefan Richter in Flex, Components | 18 Comments

I'm proud to announce the immediate release of our Flex Whiteboard Component for Red5. This component is based on the existing and very popular FMS Whiteboard Component which has been ported to Red5.
I will shortly be adding more details to the product page but since the clientside API is essentially identical to the existing FMS component there is little to say other than that we now have a separate Red5 version :)
Once again I am standing on the shoulders of giants and all credit goes to my friend Darren who has not only written the original FMS version but also ported it to Red5.

The component consists of a SWC for use with Flex plus full sources for the server side, in this case written in Java. The price is $499 which is the same price as for the FMS version. We do also offer a source code licence to selected clients. The component version is sufficient for most use cases though.

Feel free to contact me if you are interested in this component or its sources.

18 comments
Posted on July 9, 2009 at 5:36 PM. 9560 views. Print

Tweet Follow @stefanrichter

Related Blog Entries

Flex Whiteboard Component for Flash Media Server, Wowza or Red5 (September 28, 2007)
Flash Whiteboard Component (January 1, 2005)

TweetBacks

Comments

Add Comment Subscribe to Comments

#1 by Thijs Triemstra on 7/9/09 - 5:26 PM

Nice but 499 dollars, seriously?
#2 by Stefan Richter on 7/9/09 - 6:18 PM

Yep, seriously. And it's been selling very well at that price point.
You should weigh up a component like this versus creating one from scratch - you may be one of the few people who has the skills to do it, but what would you charge me if I hired you to build it? My guess is that it's somewhere in the region of $499 plus another zero tagged at the end. If you would do it for a lot less then I'd like to chat further :)
#3 by Ncu on 7/9/09 - 7:52 PM

Yeah, whiteboard components are hard to develop.
#4 by David on 7/9/09 - 8:05 PM

$499 for a major component makes sense when the server costs $4,500...but I can't imagine selling too many copies for a server that costs $0.

Still, it probably took very little work to port it, so they might only need to sell a handful of copies to turn a profit.
#5 by Stefan Richter on 7/9/09 - 8:20 PM

FWIW, we sold it a few times before we even announced it and ported it because customers kept asking.

The price of the server is largely irrelevant. People pay for tools that save them time and money, whether those tools work on open source platforms or not. I don't believe that people who choose open source programs won't pay for good support or additional expertise. It's only now typing these words when I realise that some people may feel that it's somehow 'wrong' to offer commercial products on top of a free open source tool. I think it's perfectly fine though.

I haven't counted how many times we have sold the FMS version, but it's fair to say that the port to Red5 wouldn't have been made had it not made some business sense.

The component is here if and when you need it.
#6 by Brian Lesser on 7/10/09 - 12:21 PM

Hi Stefan,
Can you say something about what was involved in the port? I assume you had to write server-side code in Java? What challenges did you face moving to Red 5 from FMS?
Cheers,
-Brian
#7 by Stefan Richter on 7/10/09 - 12:24 PM

Hi Brian,
as outlined above, I didn't write the port but Darren did. Yes, essentially it involved writing some Java code for the server side, and only minimal client side changes. Happy to send you some samples if you're interested.
#8 by TJ Downes on 8/5/09 - 6:17 PM

That's the problem with open source, most people dont want to pay for anything, irregardless of how good it is or how much effort went into it.

I, for one, applaud your efforts and wish you the best success. At $499 it seems like a great deal. I know I'd prefer to spend that for a client solution over having to build it myself. not only am I saving the client time and money, i am saving myself an awful lot of frustration.

So thanks!
#9 by Stefan Richter on 8/6/09 - 9:50 AM

thanks @TJ Downes, I appreciate the feedback.
#10 by Michael Chang on 8/15/09 - 6:43 AM

I have to agree that $499 is a good deal. I'm a software consultant, and developing something like this for $499 would require that the developer insane, on lots of drugs, or living in the poorest slum in the poorest country of the world where the extremely low cost of living effectively makes him a rich man. Granted, software sold to a general audience versus a single client should be priced lower to catch more clients, and because you'll make up for the difference soon enough. Nevertheless, $499 is not a bad price.
#11 by praveen on 10/13/09 - 10:31 AM

Stefan,

I dont find any thing to erase in your white board. why dont you provide an eraser in the component.
#12 by Stefan Richter on 10/13/09 - 10:33 AM

have you tried the delete key?
#13 by praveen on 10/14/09 - 1:52 PM

I tried delete, its deleting the entire shape.

Let me ask you in one instance i want to
erase a part of a line drawn , in such cases using a delete key will cause to delete the entire line but not what i want to erase.

it would be much better if we have a eraser like that which is in mspaint.
#14 by Jonathan on 11/26/09 - 11:55 PM

Yes I'd be interested in how you would handle a "simple" eraser tool that erases part of the display objects and is still multi-user. Any plans to implement this feature?
#15 by Stefan Richter on 11/27/09 - 9:45 AM

We currently cannot support partial erase due to the nature of the drawn objects - these are vector shapes and not bitmaps which makes erasing difficult.
#16 by Fabio on 2/16/10 - 4:37 PM

Seems nice and seems that it took a lot of work.
A client was wanting something like this and i'm talking him into buying your componnent.
#17 by viablog on 9/2/10 - 9:50 PM

good information !
#18 by Anis on 9/30/10 - 8:30 AM

Great work really. But I didn't like the sticking rectangle around any shape I draw it seems a little bit crude. As for erasing tool can't you hack a background color and use it as another pen tool overwriting what needs to be erased. I'm sure with little more of fine tuning this could be an awesome offer.