Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Content Delivery Network Now Live, Making Faster OS X/iOS Downloads Possible
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, I definitely feel like my home ISP prefers certain websites because Amazon Instant Video is SLOW. I know AT&T LTE does. 50mbps download speed from speedtest.net, but loading anything else is slower than on DSL.
that depends on where you live and where the content is in relation to you. amazon has their own CDN and it's wherever they host their content.
one time years ago i rented a movie on amazon and it was horrible. constant buffering. few months back i was watching amazon prime video and it was better than netflix on time warner in NYC
----------
because you deploy these things with one deployment, work the bugs out and go from there
Sometimes a township will complain about a soon to be built Walmart because of traffic congestion it may cause. So Walmart will pay to upgrade the infrastructure of the town to reduce this impact. I don't see how this is any different.
Also considering if a company needs to provide service to all customers then it may need to use QoS controls to throttle bandwidth of certain high-demand request types.
If one business wants to help another business fund overhead then more power to them, it's win-win, you get the priority and we get the costs covered.
It's not like providing direct CDN layer access is taking anything away from someone else, it's only providing more.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality.
But it's more like "Bye bye income for Akamai who gets 10% of their revenues from Apple"
Apple is building their own solutions for a lot of things that other companies used to provide. And that's good for Apple.
Apple has always preferred vertical integration to control the entire stack. Why rent when you can own? Apple can certainly afford to own.
The article says Apple could spend $100m by the end of the year on their CDN. That used to be a lot of money... but it's a pittance for a company like Apple.
The net has never been neutral. Those who can afford to have more fiber lines installed or connected their data centers have more bandwidth available. The CDNs are usually located near or on top of the fastest backbone lines heading directly towards the major ISPs.
I think this is conflating different issues...
As you say, NN doesn't have anything to do with server farms or network upgrades. However, agreements such as these undermine NN by creating separate broadband highways for only those that can afford it, which potentially squeezes out smaller competitors or discourages upstarts. Some might see that as simple capitalism, but without regulation, the *long term* affects have a tendency to be anti-consumer and create an anti-competitive marketplace.
To be clear, Apple hasn't done anything "wrong" here (i.e. their deal with Comcast), and they are legally taking advantage of what's available to them to stay competitive. So, good for them!
However, without NN regulation, the overall effect of these deals (whether Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.) with the ISPs (which are essentially monopolies) has some potentially dire ramifications in the long run to a fair, competitive and innovative marketplace.
CDN's came out in the late 90's
still remember the first time i read about akamai
----------
level 3 and cogent will charge smaller businesses more $$$ now anyway. the bigger you are the more data you send, the less they charge you per gigabit.
like every other business. and comcast and verizon are giving netflix lower pricing than they got from level 3 and cogent. and comcast and verizon allow competing services fast access to their network as well
Yes this is what net neutrality deals with, but (and someone correct me here if Ive totally missed what this rumor is addressing) I dont think what youre saying has anything to do with this.
This rumor isnt saying that Apple has paid Comcast for faster delivery, its saying that Apple has improved (by eliminating a 3rd party CDN) the way their data is delivered to Comcast, which will provide faster delivery on the back end.
These improvements should apply to all ISPs exactly the same way. The only reason were seeing Comcast in the article is because whoever took that screenshot and is running those traces is connected to the web via Comcast.
Not all people have a computer running Server, but both ideas are valid. I really wish Apple would incorporate both ideas into the next version of Mac OS X & iOS.
Not convinced until they publicly state
I don't think this is right. Akamai/Edgesuite can use Apple's address space too. Take the APNS farm for example. Look up gateway.push.apple.com and you'll see it's not serviced by Apple as such but they're using Apple's address range. They always have. That's why Enterprises have been able to configure firewall rules for the 17.0.0.0/8 network. Just because it's a 17 address, doesn't mean it's Apple data centres.
I don't think this is right. Akamai/Edgesuite can use Apple's address space too. Take the APNS farm for example. Look up gateway.push.apple.com and you'll see it's not serviced by Apple as such but they're using Apple's address range. They always have. That's why Enterprises have been able to configure firewall rules for the 17.0.0.0/8 network. Just because it's a 17 address, doesn't mean it's Apple data centres.
Ok, but then explain to me why Akamai is allowed to be in this business and Apple is not. Let's look at 3 different things Apple has taken over from a contractor:
Apple decided to make their own maps instead of using Google's.
Apple decided to design their own mobile chips instead of using Intel's designs.
Now Apple has decided to run internet hardware instead of paying Akamai for it.
What makes the third one different? It's ok for Apple to be a map-maker and chip designer but it's somehow not cool for them to enter the business of providing internet content to ISPs? Why? What makes Akamai so special that they, and ONLY they, should be allowed to have that business?
Apple's not doing anything new here. They're just replacing Akamai's hardware with their own. What does that change (other than Akamai's bottom line)?
Can someone give me a real-world example of the effects of this?
I keep hearing about how big corporations can afford to pay for "fast" connections that the little guys can't afford. And this will hurt the little guys and harm innovation.
But I need some clarification on what that actually means.
Before "fast" connections there were just "normal" connections.
Everybody from the tiniest startup to the biggest corporation used "normal" connections.
And I'm assuming the "normal" connections were good enough.
Now we've got some big corporations paying for "fast" connections.
But isn't everyone else still using the same "normal" connections that they always have? What exactly are the differences between the "normal" connections from yesterday and the "normal" connections from today?
To me... it sounds like "normal" is the baseline and you can pay extra for "fast"
But I'm just not seeing how a small company stuck with "normal" connections will be harmed.
Maybe its just me, but I'm hesitant to download OS updates from anywhere but the software developer's own domain.
Most of them have been and would be coming through a CDN of some sort or something similar anyway.
I'll correct you then because you've got it all backwards.
First, this isn't a "rumor". Second, this *is* about Apple paying Comcast for faster delivery. Third, these improvements do *not* apply to all ISPs exactly the same way.
There are two separate things going on here. First issue: Apple creating their own CDN. Nothing really controversial in itself. Second issue: Apple paying Comcast for direct interconnections to Comcast's network. This is the controversial part.
Peering agreements predate CDN's and dedicated data centers. They go all the way back to commercial operations first being allowed on the internet with their big minicomputers. Some pairs of organizations had fast connections, some didn't. Some paid for upgrades (digging up the streets to drop fiber). Some just took whatever AT&T/MCI/et.al. had lying around.
this is not controversial at all and is standard practice for All of the internet.
You pay your ISP for speed. your speed is determined by how much you are willign to pay. its tiered pricing and has always existed.
This is not the subject of net neutrality.
Apple is only paying for a direct pipe into Comcasts backbone. Anyone can do this. its purely a money and infrastructure thing.
Net Neutrality deals with the ISp's purposely throttling back their content unless they pay extra, despite having the technology and infrastructure to deliver.
in simple example terms:
Violation of Net Neutrality:
Apple has 1TB direct pipe to Comcast. You connect to download your update. you receive 100kb/s and a popup that says "if you want to take advantage of our full 1TB bandwith, please pay!"
What this is:
Apple pays for a direct hardware connection from their servers to comcasts backbone. That 1TB connection is always on, and available to all users where the only real limitation on speed is the users internet Tier or some other link that might not have the technical capabilities of handling it'
