Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Prefers Flash To Silverlight
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sat May 10, 2008 09:39 AM
from the recoding-takes-time dept.
from the recoding-takes-time dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft still has not adopted Silverlight, and uses Flash all over its websites. 'Despite all the controversy over Microsoft using Silverlight to take over the rich internet market from Adobe Flash, the software giant seems to be not even trying. In fact, even most Microsoft web sites are using Flash instead of Silverlight.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Microsoft Prefers Flash to Silverlight by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Developers: Microsoft Linking Silverlight, Ruby on Rails 232 comments
CWmike writes "Friday Microsoft will demonstrate integration between its new Silverlight browser plug-in and Ruby on Rails. Microsoft's John Lam, a program manager in the dynamic language runtime team, said in a recent blog item: 'Running Rails shows that we are serious when we say that we are going to create a Ruby that runs real Ruby programs. And there isn't a more real Ruby program than Rails.' Also at the event, Microsoft officials will demonstrate IronRuby, a version of the Ruby programming language for Microsoft's .Net platform, running a Ruby on Rails application."
[+]
Technology: Move Over AJAX, Make Room for ARAX 409 comments
sasserstyl writes "eWeek reports that Microsoft's Silverlight platform will support Ruby client-side scripting, enabling ARAX — or Asynchronous Ruby and XML. Would be cool to have the option to script client-side in something other than Javascript. 'In essence, using ARAX, Ruby developers would not have to go through the machinations of using something like the RJS (Ruby JavaScript) utility, where they write Ruby code and RJS generates JavaScript code to run on the client, Lam said. "Sure, you could do it that way, but then at some point you might have to add some JavaScript code that adds some custom functionality on the client yourself," he said. "So there's always that sense of, 'Now I'm in another world. And wouldn't it be nice if I have this utility class I wrote in Ruby...' Today if I want to use it in the browser I have to port it to JavaScript. Now I can just run it in the browser."'"
[+]
Technology: Microsoft Demos "Deep Zoom" Technology 272 comments
Barence writes "Yesterday, during a presentation for this year's Imagine Cup, Microsoft's Mark Taylor demonstrated the company's Deep Zoom technology to appreciative gasps of admiration from the computing students present. It's pretty impressive stuff, and you can try 'deep zooming' for yourself at the Hard Rock Memorabilia Site." Unfortunately the demo requires the Silverlight plugin and the story is pretty thin on technical details. I would be interested to see how they captured the image data to that level without massive pixelation.
[+]
Technology: Miguel De Icaza On Mono, Moonlight, and Gnome 328 comments
Knuckles writes "Austrian newspaper Der Standard continues its recent series of in-depth interviews with free software developers. This time they sat down with Novell's Vice President of Developer Platform, Miguel de Icaza of Gnome and Mono fame. The interview was conducted at GUADEC (GNOME Users' And Developers' European Conference).
Miguel talks mainly about Mono 2.0 and .Net 3.5 compatibility, enhancing the collaboration with Microsoft over Silverlight ('Moonlight' in Mono), and the larger political situation of Mono and Moonlight. When the interviewer asks whether Moonlight is only validating Silverlight on the web, Miguel gives a quite detailed answer that includes a possibly well-deserved swipe at Mozilla ..."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Dog food? (Score:3, Insightful)
This story is idiotic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is a huge company with dozens of divisions, and thousands of teams. Development cycles for a company like this can last years. Don't expect them to adopt some new technology like silverlight on every single public site they posess in a heartbeat.
Moreover, just suggesting that they would re-write an existing portal (that may not even really need SL technology) simply because a new technology came out makes no sense. Programmer time is expensive, so what business justification do you have spending money to rebuild a portal that is functioning just fine in the first place?
MS does stupid shit that they deserver to be bashed for, such as the whole Open XML fiasco. Posting stories like this just destroys the sites credibility, and makes look like you engage in mindless MS bashing, rather than really looking at issues that are critical to tech savy people.
Parent
Re:This story is idiotic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainely not. But between your figure and no exposure at all (almost), there is some room, and it looks odd that did not really start some sort of significant promotion for their technology (unless I missed it).
Moreover, just suggesting that they would re-write an existing portal (that may not even really need SL technology) simply because a new technology came out makes no sense
They did that "non-sense" (in a technical point of view) in the past. Just look at the hotmail migration (attempt) on windows server for example. If you want your technology to get exposure, you need to show it in action on realife applications. Microsoft has the horsepower to do that sort of things very quickly and deeply, to the contrary of many others.
It looks strange to me because I've little doubt that the client-rich application's future is closer to FLEX/SL than the present web "standards".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainely not. But between your figure and no exposure at all (almost), there is some room, and it looks odd that did not really start some sort of significant promotion for their technology (unless I missed it).
You sort-of missed it. There are portions of their site that are being tested with Silverlight, such as their new MSDN downloads area. They are beta tests, so you only see them if you're one of the random users that gets prompted to participate while using the production site, but they do exist. Also, not that this is a huge plus for SL but it's integrated heavily into the Vista UI already.
Also, lets not forget that SL is new. v1.0 may be a few years old, but it's nowhere near as easy to use as 2.0 is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This story is idiotic. (Score:4, Insightful)
Internally, I imagine many people at Microsoft knew that Silverlight was coming, and had access to the team behind it. The issue of 'turning the ship' is just an excuse. Internal communication may be terrible, but major new products should be trumpeted far and wide in a company like Microsoft.
Imagine the impact of an entirely Silverlight-based Microsoft site on launch day, from their front page through to MSDN. That would highlight the new web platform amazingly well, greatly increase the uptake (every visitor would choose to download it or view old Flash content, perhaps) and present a solid, unified front from the entire company.
The only justification required for rewriting their web presence is simply this - do they want Silverlight to succeed or not? Right now people can point to Microsoft's own site and argue with some justification that Microsoft has no faith in their own product. It's just as bad as if they were hosting their site on Linux servers.
It's not just a 'dog-fooding' thing either. It's also advertising without buying ad space. How will Silverlight pick up unless people know about it? One way for people to find out is to pay for ads, another is to lead by example and show how it's better. Lead the web developers and the users will follow.
It would've been a massive undertaking and expensive, so I can see why few would advocate it. It would also have been a massive statement about the company really getting behind their new web platform, and an excellent example of the power of Silverlight.
A missed opportunity, unfortunately.
Parent
Re:This story is idiotic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why is that if Adobe has a monopoly on a web item that in the end will be monstrously profitable that it's perfectly ok? If Microsoft wants to move in and give them competition it's a mortal sin.
First. There was Quicktime. And we had motion.
Then there was Real,
and we were an[BUFFERING]noyed.
Then there was Flash... At first it was wasted on useless intro animations, and was despised. But then it found its niche, and made one good thing easy: Embedding video in a web page, and giving that an interface.
And we were pleased.
And since it was good, it became very profitable. And Microsoft saw that profit, and said "I want it for me!", and they made silverlight, and tried to force us to use it by signing
Silverlight is insignificant (Score:3, Insightful)
Most sites making commercials will probably stay with Flash and animated images as a backup unless Silverlight allows them to create yet more annoying CPU-demanding commercials.
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:4, Insightful)
Forgive me, I will wait until the FOSS community gets a chance to vet the code first. In the mean time, as the title says, Silverlight is insignificant and irrelevant.
Parent
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the wait?
Flex is open source. The SWF file format is an open specification.
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Informative)
It IS open.
On May 1, 2008, as part of its Open Screen Project, Adobe dropped all restrictions on the SWF and FLV formats.
Parent
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_(runtime)#cite_note-status-6 [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO, it should really have worked the way rolling out projects from Project Builder on NeXT/Open Step worked - only the relevant libraries/D
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you're wrong.
It's a shame you spent so much effort writing all that and none on Googling, because there is plenty of information out there.
Adobe's own application platform for Flash is Flex [adobe.com]. OpenLaszlo [openlaszlo.org] is an open-source XML based programming language for developing apps in SWF. Flash itself also has a substantial component collection for app development, and finally, there are dozens of third-party ActionScript IDEs and compliers available.
That's why Microsoft is introducing Silverlight. Flash is threatening to become an OS-independent application platform which could make Windows irrelevant.
Parent
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why Microsoft is introducing Silverlight. Flash is threatening to become an OS-independent application platform which could make Windows irrelevant.
Parent
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:4, Interesting)
I said it was threatening, not that it would be successful.
Those of us who were around then will remember that Microsoft mounted a sustained attack on Java, and deliberately crippled it's multi-platform capabilities. I'm sure they will try the same with Flash.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This would be the same Adobe that doesn't have 64-bit flash yet? on any platform! Whose linux flash support even in 32-bit is way behind the times?
If there was ever a platform that Microsoft had a real chance of overtaking, Flash would be it. If sliverlight/moonlight can get an installed base it has a real chance of being a flash killer.
And considering windows update just prompted me to try the new 'silverlight' beta version, MS *IS* putting the effort in to use silverlight on their
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Informative)
You're indeed missing something, because you're looking at the wrong product. Adobe's product for developing web applications for the flash player is called flex. Go take a look at some flex books (for flex 2 or 3), and be enlightened.
In my opinion flex can go toe-to-toe with any client-side web dev platform, be it silverlight, java client, java/gwt, extjs, or whatever.
Actionscript 3 is modern language that encourages good development practices. The flex framework is complete, fast, light, easy to extend, and easy to work with. And mxml, flex's xaml-equivalent, well, just check it out, it's really nice.
I see it as quite opposite. Silverlight doesn't offer a compelling featureset to lure people away from flash/flex. It doesn't do anything development-wise that might tempt flex developers, and it cannot integrate animators and designers as good as the flash / flex combination can.
Parent
It's the sloppiness + the abusiveness. (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the first 2 versions of Microsoft products usually have very severe bugs. For example, Windows XP and Windows XP SP1, and Windows Vista and Windows Vista SP1 were or are full of grief for administrators.
Customers don't want to be beta testers for Microsoft, any longer.
After Microsoft has forced a significant number of its less knowledgeable users to install Silverlight, Microsoft salesmen will begin talking about "significant market share", if the past is any guide.
"I think Flash has just gone too far down the wrong route, as application development in it seems like a hack." My experience with Macromedia is that it was always a sloppy company. Unforunately, Adobe management seems to be malfunctioning recently.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because Silverlight-based applications are cross-platform, they run in most modern Web browsers, including the following:
Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 Beta
Mozilla Firefox versions 1.5 and 2.0
Apple Safari version 2.0 and 3.0 Beta.
Currently it runs on Windows and Mac, with the Mono team apparently having a Silverlight port already up and running. Its not 100% cross platform, but its a hell of alot better then most previous Microsoft technologies. You have to keep in mind the technol
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you never heard of Netscape?>
MS will simply work on the technology until they are ready to push it out as part of IE. Then, one update, it goes live to all of the IE users they can push it to. They already have critical mass, they only have to flip that switch. You have to remember MS does not move on a dime. They are slower and more methodical in their market take overs. They have time and money on their side. And they normally get what they want.
They will probably have all (or most) of their websites with a silverlight version running before they flip that switch. Then, they will push it out and the new experience will start. But, they will want that experience to be noticeably *better* before they do it.
InnerWeb
Parent
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:4, Informative)
but who cares, they turned me off it when I kept getting popups asking if I wanted to install it, am I sure I don't, no really we think you should. oh ok, I'll ask again next time you visit any page in case you've changed your mind.
I installed it in the end just to shut the damn thing up, and even then it refused to install. I almost cried with the frustration! The CIA could use this technique to get their terrorist suspects to talk.
MS doesn't often plan their takeover of markets, someone someehere in the depths of MS's vast ranks of development makes something cool, others within MS get to hear of it, its attracts some takeup,, and then everone in MS thinks that becuase they like it, you will too. And if you don't like it - tough, as they want you to have it so it becomes ubiqutous enough that they can use it everywhere without worrying about it. Hence the push to have silverlight installed everywhere.
Of course, that's the old way of MS planning. Now, someone at MS decides they can make money from it/increase market share/dominate a market, and so they tell everyone at MS to push it everywhere. It often doesn't work - look at
BTW, they cannot 'flip the switch' and have you have it, they'd get sued. Again. That's why you have to opt-in to silverlight. Whether you want it or not.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:4, Insightful)
The reality is that most stores cater to the 85-90% of the market they are in; the rest are marginalized simply because you can't make enough money on them - too much support and inventory costs to support everyone and that leaves the little niche markets for small companies.
When you're a big company, you simply cannot look to take on every small niche - you will not survive. So you live on the big chunks of the market.
Parent
re-development cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it some time before making these stupid accusations. Just because they themselves have existing code and developers doesn't mean they are suggesting new development elsewhere shouldn't use the technology and be "ahead of the curve". I'm not saying silverlight is better - just that MS's lack of use of it doesn't suggest anything at this point in time.
Re:re-development cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:re-development cost (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't realize that Microsoft still had developers. I sort of thought that Vista and Office 2007 demonstrated that all the developers had exercised their stock options and gone on to more interesting projects with Google, IBM, and Yahoo.
Um, wasn't that what the Yahoo deal was really all about? Ballmer trying to reclaim some of his developers developers developers?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To promote their product?
Silverlight has been released more than a year ago already. They have had quite some time already, especially for a company with massive resources.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't live in the "please install this plugin" era anymore. That time is over. Most people have never, ever installed a plug-in and the rest hasn't done so since the last decade or so.
Mi
Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
The last thing they want is people going "wtf, microsofts site is broken!" because they don't realize its silverlight.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, because Microsoft products are so insanely reliable, so robust, so rock-solid, that Microsoft could in no way afford to create the perception that perhaps something of theirs is broken. It would ruin them, I tell you!
Parent
Maybe they're waiting for SP2 (Score:5, Funny)
the obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They, like the Gods, will do as they will.
JavaFX.com is Java-free (Score:5, Informative)
JavaFX.com [javafx.com] uses JavaScript and QuickTime to promote the benefits of JavaFX. No JVM needed.
(Of course, you still have to visit the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] for an introduction in context.)
Um, no (Score:3, Informative)
Unless by "No JVM needed," you mean "No JVM needed apart from an already installed JVM."
It's only a matter of time.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to admit, some of the Silverlight sites I've seen so far have actually been kind of cool - the one that sticks out to me is the Hard Rock Memorabilia site at http://memorabilia.hardrock.com/ [hardrock.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until then I guess I'll just have to make do without the undoubtedly awesome hardrock cafe memoribilia website. Undoubtedly, because their RL establishments are just so great...
Thank God, I hate the obtrusive advertising. (Score:3, Interesting)
Perfect Slashdot Article (Score:5, Insightful)
A perfect blurb for Slashdot. Bashes Microsoft. Claims competition is a "controversy." Mixes up pronouns. Makes up impressive sounding terminology like "the rich internet market." Shocked that different parts of a megacorporation uses different toolsets. Has no clue or firmly ignores that management of Microsoft departments are as segmented as possible for profit reasons, antitrust reasons and at the demand of the marketplace. Even gets the Microsoft-haters like me to go WTF?! and post a reply, driving up page hits.
Adobe is Poised to Lose It (Score:5, Interesting)
Silverlight works just fine on my web site and doesn't crash anything. MS is pushing a lot of content providers to try Silverlight, so the install base should go up this summer.
MS lost its edge in the OS war through complacency and slow roll-out performance. I see Adobe doing the same with Flash.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Silverlight seems to work fine on both, though I've only run across a few sites that use it.
As for Acrobat, are you talking the PDF creation too
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reason that x64 CS3 will be Windows-only is that Apple promised, and then later rescinded, a 64-bit Carbon. It's really more a case of Apple shooting itself in the foot than any fault on Adobe's part.
I agree with you regarding getting CS on Linux, though. I also think that Adobe's recent move to lift the restrictions on the use of the Flash format documentation is a step in the right direction -- it says to me that Adobe would rather open up Flash entirely than see it lose to Silverlight, and in the
A response from Denny Boynton (Score:4, Informative)
http://blog.dennyboynton.com/post/Why-is-Microsoft-So-Slow-to-Adopt-Silverlight.aspx [dennyboynton.com]
Re:Why not 3D for the web? (Score:5, Interesting)
I spoke with one of the devs working on SL, and he told me the issue is gaining access to the accelerated rendering devices. Most if not all browsers don't let plugins create a 3d surface (Maybe you can do this with ActiveX in IE *shrug*), so it'll involve a fair amount of hackery to get this working uniformly on all their targeted platforms. There are some interesting features planned post 2.0, but thats for Microsoft to divulge when they're ready.
It's interesting (but not surprising) that noone here pointed out that flash is far superior to silverlight 1.0 and 1.0 is the only version that allows sites to go live to end users.
For those who don't know, 1.0 is essentially a 2d-and-video compositor with a relatively nice API, but programable only using javascript, which depending on what you're doing can get really slow really fast.
Actionscript is much faster than javascript, and with flex is much easier to use imo. But (again imo) C# trumps both.
Silverlight 2.0 is in beta, with beta 2 coming sometime soon, and that's the tech most MS/C# web developers are interested in using. A cut down
If java applets were seemless with a 4meg footprint that installs in 20 seconds, it would've stolen the application programming market long ago. Flash has steadily gotten better instead, but again, I think C# is better
Flame on.
-DS
Parent