I read Ted's blog regularly and I felt that his MS bashing was over the top - yet he does make some valid points. But then on the other hand I also come across blogs like that of Kurt Shintaku, a Microsoft employee who tells us a similar story but from an MS perspective and notes the 'Top 10 reasons why MS Silverlight can succeed' (notice the use of the word can, not will...). What winds me up about this post is the huge amount of misinformation Kurt spreads about Flash (and he doesn't even mention Flex - very convenient) while proclaiming under point 1 that 'It's not about "copying Flash".
Hmm but it smells like Flash, it feels like Flash, it's called Silverlight (wtf?) - it sounds like a rip off to me. MS, have the guts to just say it - SPELL IT OUT! 'Yes, we're trying to copy what the Flash Platform does best'. There. Fine. But no, oh it's not about Flash no no, yet here are 10 points of which seven mention Flash - but of course it's not about Flash... and while I may be biased in this discussion, there are other who agree with me.
That aside, there's so much misinformation in this article that I don't know where to start. ..
DRM: did Kurt read Adobe's press releases? Flash video WILL have DRM (not that I think it needs it), just like Silverlight will have DRM (just better is my guess because Adobe will focus on end users AS WELL AS content owners and not just the latter). And he goes on to state how poor Flash video's content protection is and that it can be recorded - well I have some news for Kurt: Windows Media DRM has it's issues (like this one and this one - need any more?). Moreover all the Flash video sites he links to make no effort in stopping users from discovering the URL of the FLV... they are progressively available files on a public URL, no surprise then that you can download them!
There's more: Silverlight apparently is 'a product that's squarely focused on media quality, media tools, and media needs'. Sounds great (yet I'm not sure what it means exactly). Anyone taken the end users into account?
Which leads me on to the next point: cost. Yeah, we all know that Flash Media Server isn't cheap but what about the cost of progressively served FLV video? Or the fact that Flash Media Server delivers a ton more than just streaming video? Does YouTube stream its FLV files? Does Google video? I bet they don't even run Windows web servers (no, I haven't checked) because they'd cost too much! So please, don't throw with stones etc etc...
Quality: are users really waiting for HD? I'm not sure they are. And please don't assume that Adobe is standing still, by time Silverlight has any kind of traction the Flash video platform will also have moved on. New codecs anyone?
I could go on as there's at least 10 other points about Flash that are plain wrong.
I probably know about as much about Silverlight as Kurt knows about the Flash Platform (which apparently doesn't support overlays on top of video) so I will keep stumm on what this technology is good at or not. But I do know Flash and this sort of misinformation really gets me. Only time will tell. In the meantime Kurt should probably keep telling himself that 'Flash is just a necessary evil'. With this attitude Silverlight should better watch out not to become an unnecessary evil...
Right now I just feel hostile towards Silverlight and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because of the attitude that Microsoft shows time and time again, trying badly to be hip and to rip off ideas but not admitting to it (check the features if you don't believe me). And how badly do they really care about cross platform support? I'm not so convinced when I look at their history - IE on Mac, WMP on Mac... Next they'll probably tell us that the Zune wasn't meant to be an iPod competitor! 'Late to market' somehow rings in my ears.
Feel free to leave comments (such as 'you're only scared of Silverlight because it does so many things that Flash can't do like... errm one sec, lemme see...').
I knew it would turn into a rant...
You rant, so we don't have to ;)
Better out than in!
Personally I can't arsed with silverlight at the moment. I have enough to play with and learn, with flash platform. Added to the fact that my primary development platform is a Mac - the silverlight SDK is no use to me.
I also need to agree with creacog because there is not enough time in the day to learn another platform that can, as far as I know at this moment, only offer me the same functionality as the Flash Platform. And as my earlier post questions, <a href"http://www.lane4interactive.com/2007/04/19/another...">"Why should I learn this"</a> when clearly we have enough on our hands to master one platform.
Thanks,
Tim O'Hare
As he pointed out if you want any of the advanced features:real 3D, hardware-based video acceleration, and full document support then you need to go with the MS only solution. Interesting how he presented the OS lockin as a benefit. Gee, thanks...
The other one about end users will use whatever content creators publish in is true-and they publish to flash in many cases-on ps3's, psp's, youtube, windows mobile 5, cellphones. Flash is better deployed on MS stuff than MS itself. Does MS have a device central? I think not!
Based on these that tool will be of no use to me or my clients. They really only see flash and miss everything around it that creates value added features:CS3 integration, apollo support-html and pdf by way of that, web tools like kuler. I'd like to see MS produce an application with this cool and awesome to work with technology!
Hopefully Adobe will be keeping an eye on this and protecting their developer base!
Huh? You think the US FREAKING Government needs to proactively become involved with how are internet content is delivered? Hopefully your thought process is severely in the minority.
Yeah, I do get paid by Microsoft but I look after a lot of products in my role, so if Silverlight gets more kudous it's mainly because it's new and that's it (my role covers emerging technology from MSFT as well).
I've got stuff in the burners, but can't give it up until the Release as that *will* get my butt in trouble and secondly I want to make sure it's put into context first.
I think now isn't the time the more I read rants online, I think there is going to be a cool-off period where everyone needs to firstly adjust to the notion Silverlight is here and where does it fit in terms of concept.
Then, we have rational conversations based on merit and where it stands. That being said, this isn't a short haul, it's a long term vision that covers three areas of experience.
(Ultimate - WPF)
(Great - Silverlight)
(Good - ASP.NET 2.0 + AJAX)
I won't comment on where I think Flash sits in the three as it wouldn't be appropriate and would trigger a bad reaction (kind of like a rash but more aggressive). I'd say though I think it touches on more then one in the above ;) (positive folks, that's a positive compliment).
Learning Silverlight isn't a must, it's a choice like all technologies. Some hate AJAX and would prefer to stab themselves in the eye before they touch it, much like say Ruby on Rails... others love them... whatever suites the fingers on keyboard at the end of the day works.
Like I said, at the moment, look for official remarks from both camps for guidance and formulate your own opinions on "official" information as it's an emotionally charged issue.
(Ryan seems to have a fairly balanced pulse on the matter, so keep an eye on his posts).
Scott Barnes
Developer Evangelist
Microsoft
I am a pure Flash Platform Developer and installed the silverlight beta runtime 5 minutes ago. Did I sell my soul? Anyway.
What I don
I totally agree that video is just one aspect of it all and I'm still waiting for someone to step up and explain why Silverlight is needed, what innovations it brings to the table. Scott, your post didn't clarify any of that - all we know now is that there's a lot of stuff you can't tell us about.
Yes I'm picking sides, but that's not because I think Silverlight (dang, what's with that name - could they have been any more imaginative and called it Lightning 2.0 ?) is no good, but I have a problem with MS's attitude, making out that it's only partially competing with Flash yada yada, so much cheaper yada yada when in effect that's bu**sh*t quite frankly. What is the big deal about admitting to it? Yes, we've copied Flash and hired a lot of Flash talent for that reason.
Markus, yes, you've joined the dark side and are forever lost ;-)
In response to Joel. I don't think government should be involved in how content is delivered. I am talking of the wider picture. In the UK we have a monopoly and mergers commission that actively judges companies decisions to weigh up how it will affect the market and consumer choice. So it would be a case of No Microsoft you cannot preload silverlight and not Flash into Windows.
In my opinion its no good the US or Europe waiting 5 years to fine a company like Microsoft for anticompetitive actions when the damage has already been done and is irreversible.
I personally don't mind that an alternative technology is out there. What I do mind is when theres a slagging match going on which has no relevance to anything, Kurt Shintaku's article is just this.
It's been proven historically that when people have a lot of 'influence', they aren't likely to be friendly to those who are a 'threat' - real or perceived - to that 'influence'.
Of course people are taking sides. What do you expect?
But when all is said and done, I hope I'm wrong.
I was getting equally annoyed at some of the comments going round the blogosphere and I've left some rather blunt comments on some MS developer sites. I'm really glad about Silverlight, however, for one main reason:
It solidifies the changing of the way RIAs are built! I'm personally tired of the uphill battle dealing with enterprise Java/.net developers who only know how to build RIAs with back-end templates filled w/ ghetto code.
Microsoft's release of Silverlight makes this less of an uphill battle.
Cheers!
I love Flash and probably wont be interested in Silverlight. However more choice in a competetive market to me doesn't see a bad thing. Adobe isn't a small soletrader fighting for business. As long as Microsoft plays within the rules we should be in for an interesting ride.
As a front-end webdeveloper I have to deal daily with HTML, CSS and javascript and w3c, best practise, standards and crossbrowser needs.
The company I work for are building the websites for others in .Net (framework 2), which is really complicating my work (for instance: installing visual studio 2005, learning about solutions/projects, .Net struggles etc).
So a month ago I presented Adobe Flex 2 to my company, with the presence of our .Net programmers. They were actually quite etnhousiastic about this 'RIA' thing. However, since MS launched Silverlight, our programmers and chiefs prefer MS products more now...
They come up with arguments like Visual Studio, WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation), XAML and .Net will be the best combination in our situation, because of 'our' support for MS products. (errr... every PC has Dreamweaver installed, but only used by webeditors / front-end dev'ers).
So, my point is:
I've not seen any argument so far which say when to use MS wpf/e (expression bundle + visual studio) and when to use Adobe's Flex 2 Builder / Apollo etc.
I can't come up with the best arguments, especially needed to convince our programmers who think in .Net solutions.
For what I've found, there's actually no support or whatsoever for using both MS and Adobe's products.
Where does this leave me?
Not choosing at all would be naive, but does RIA as a goal needs to prove itself more to let developers and clients choose?
Please let me know if there's a chance I can convince our (backend) programmers to use both MS Visual Studio for backend and Adobe Flex Builder for frontend
Thanks, and may the Flashlight be with you ;)
grts Cyppher
Have you tried the WebORB route? I know they have put .NET features inside Flex Builder 2.0.1 and so you could argue that case.
I think you might be able to integrate VSVSS with Flex Builder as there are Eclipse options available as-is, but not sure how it plays well with FB (in theory it should be fine).
-
Scott Barnes
Developer Evangelist
Microsoft
iPod or Zune. You choose LOL
Using WebORB for remoting and the VSS plugin for for source control with Eclipse works like a charm (though you must use Eclipse with the Flex Builder plugin, it doesn't work with the Flex Builder reg. install). Give it a try, great way to use .NET for the backend.
but it is a concern about sliverlight diluting the 'flash' space, in that MS start to use their position of browser dominance to promote silverlight over flash by whatever means.
All those complaining about MS polluting/confusing the waters, are the same people that used Flash, when they could have been using Java all along...
Java is the only one that is truly open, and truly cross platform.
let's not forget to mention JAVA needs a plugin / OS addon, which is a very irritating piece of non usable software.
Thanks, but JAVA... even on my PDA I won't install it...
The trouble is we've already got too many video formats and it just gets worse by the week. It's all about DRM and the Streaming cash cow that's going to make zillions for the first company that manages to sew up the whole content scene. M$ has it all cued up with Vi$ta, which is crammed full of DRM, much of which won't be switched on till needed. When every machine has vista on it and it's too late to do anything about it.
You can help make this fail by refusing to come to the vista party. Keep your XP, use Ubuntu, Mac, whatever, just don't get vista. If you've got it, trash it and put something else before it's too late.
Why would anyone want bloat? It's the worst kind of 20th Century technology lingering like a bad smelling cheese.
We're almost into the second decade of the 21st Century.
Awaken to REBOL 3.0