M$ Silverlight vs. Adobe Flash Player: "Begun the clone war has..."
DIGG IT!
85
Comments
Published
Monday, April 16, 2007
at
8:09 AM
.
"The shroud of the dark side has fallen, begun the clone war has." - Yoda
What a great day for RIA, Rich Internet Applications! It is a great day because behind all the Flashy headlines and PR announcements it is a start of the clone war with Microsoft. Microsoft is attempting to clone Flash Player in it's Silverlight product (WAS WPFE) and pitch it as something fundamentally new and innovative. As with all Microsoft product releases, the marketing is spot on perfect, the messaging is silver tounged, and in classic MS fashion the technology is weak.
The goal of Silverlight is to get into the game, not to add anything new of value. If you look at the feature set on a pure technology basis, Silverlight has 80% less features and 98% less compatibility than Adobe Flash Player. I almost feel sorry for them given the long uphill battle they will have to fight to get market penetration. Having been with Flash Player for over 10 years, Flash Player had some very hard first years and success didn't happen overnight. Somehow among the glitz and glamor of the WPFE/Silverlight announcement many have lost sight of the real facts surrounding this product launch.
Here is my short list:
0% Market Penetration - Anyone choosing Silverlight for an application today should have their head examined. Every single end user is going to download and install a proprietary plug-in from Microsoft. It will take years before market penetration is meaningful, my guess is that 2012 might be a decent year for Silverlight. It took Flash Player 4 releases to get 80% traction and 2 more to get into the 90% market penetration. Microsoft will get to 50% using Windows Update(cough, anti-trust, cough) but the remaining 48% is going to be a near impossible climb.
Security and Trust - One simple question here:
Would you install an animated software runtime from Microsoft when they can't fill security holes in Animated Cursors in Windows?
80% less features, 100% more to download! I will be covering the features they are missing in depth in the coming months as the MSFUD clears. Honestly they have a world of development to do and seeing that the player size is identical to Flash, the Silverlight runtime will bloat much larger.
Browser JavaScript Powered! Seeing as the CLR didn't make the version 1.0 release, this is a dead looser. JavaScript is inconsistent across browsers in both API's and in performance. Depending on JavaScript to power Silverlight is a mistake in my book. This severely limits the high end potential for Silverlight very quickly.
Silverlight XAML doesn't stream! There are some serious benefits to using binary SWF, one is that it actually starts executing before it is fully downloaded, AKA Streaming. As Silverlight uses XML, it must be parsed and rendered and then bound into the JavaScript runtime, this takes seconds. In the preview release, running on a 4-core MacPro with 6GB RAM, it took 5 seconds for the Channel-9 example to instantiate when it was running locally without bandwidth limitations.
Cross-Platform - Microsoft has a terrible cross-platform track record as a company and most of the company's prior efforts have been deprecated. See: Mac ActiveX, Mac Internet Explorer. The only hope for Silverlight is to open source the runtime and pray for consistent cross-platform support, my bet is that Microsoft does that at MIX07. In the long run, cross-platform is not an important business story for Microsoft as it is so contrary to their core revenue. If the Windows business gets sick, MS will retreat into its core business of Windows and Office and deprecate the edge. Silverlight looks to be as far as Microsoft has ever gone as a company to embrace cross-platform and yet they still fail to support Linux. If they withdraw from this business back to Windows, they will leave an incompatible mess in the marketplace. I know one way to avoid this mess...
Adobe - Taking the gloves off! The question you need to ask is where will Flash Player be moving forward vs Silverlight, we are not sitting idly by. Our teams are working on real innovation within the Flash Player and Apollo runtimes that will change the face of rich media. With authoring solutions in Flex and Flash we are providing the best development tools for creating the future of RIA. Flash Player has a rock solid track record of wide deployment of new player technology, a great security track record, and we have a license to innovate for our customers. This is why it is such a great day for RIA, because we are in the game and ready to compete.
I could go on and on here but I will cut this one short as I am headed over to Web 2.0 conference. I am speaking on "Rich with Reach" tomorrow at Web 2.0 and I will be covering technology choices of adding "Rich" into widely deployable applications. I have a few slides on Silverlight and why it fails in the "Reach" category. "Rich" without "Reach" is a dead looser.
Let the clone wars begin!
Cheers,
Ted :)
Other Views on Silverlight:
INTRODUCING MICROSOFT SILVERLIGHT
Microsoft Unveils Silverlight to Power the Next Generation of Media Experiences on the Web
Microsoft vs Adobe Smackdown - Silverlight and Adobe Media Player
Microsoft Silverlight Takes On Adobe's Flash
Microsoft, Adobe Set A Collision Course on Web
"WPF/E" becomes Silverlight, struts its video side
SilverLight, Microsoft Expression, & Visual Studio bring RIA's to life
Witness the Awesome Rumored Power of the Silverlight!
Now was the $ really needed, Ted?
First I have to say that I have been enjoying using Flex 2 to develop web stuff after being away from it for a few years.
It seems to me though that Adobe's Linux support was added purely to say look we support a platform MS does not. They don't support 64-bit yet and don't support running Flex in Linux even though it's an Eclipse plugin.
Also, MS development environments are usually quite good, I have not used the one for Silverlight though. I would not count a plugin for Eclipse to be "the best development tools" that Adobe could come up with.
Initially I had reservations about Flex using Eclipse in general. I was wrong about this as there are tons of features that the base Eclipse evolution adds into Flex Builder. There are 1000's of plug-ins that are supported for free, ones that Adobe would have had to maintain if we chose our own IDE. Over the next year we will see several 3rd parties extend Flex Builder using the extensibility of Eclipse. I think it will get interesting when higher level tools from the community emerge that extend our core tooling. Also in terms of performance Eclipse is improving very fast so the core of Flex Builder gets better with every release.
My 2 cents,
Ted :)
I only bought Adobe Flash CS3 because they updated to Flash 9-if Adobe had not done that I'd still be authoring stuff with Flash 7, despite the old A/V Sync issues.
I'm very happy with the way Adobe did the updates, but I'm a little skeptical still on future Linux support based on past behavior from Adobe/Macromedia.
-Rob H.
With some research and some testing.. you can get the flex plugin to work in Linux.. my co-worker got it working last month.. when he gets back from vacation .. I'll see if he can get me the links he found out how to do this from..
For those interested in flash player on 64-bit linux: http://www.darronschall.com/weblog/archives/000258.cfm
Grow up with the "M$".
I guess Adobe isn't out to make $.
AFAIK, Adobe still doesn't have debug support for it's Flash player for Linux which makes half of Flex builder useless in Linux.
Ted,
So I take it your not a fan of SilverLight then? Given you've used it quite extensively and after all you wrote a thesis on Microsoft so that gives you credientials in the analyst space of what Microsoft are good at vs aren't?
Oh incidently, how is Apollo going? we getting any closer to 1.0 yet?
Wait, you like it or you don't like it--I can hardly tell. This post is pretty good because you make a good case but, man, it's a tad over the top. I really wonder if people are influenced by the various blog rivals going on. Heck, I read it all but it's not exactly helping me do my job. Okay, so it's not your job to give me something valuable to read. I'd just advise that the great products from Adobe don't need such a forceful push.
Hi Scott! I wondered when you would be around to do some new trolling!
So how is Linux support for Silverlight coming along? Creation tools for OS X? Feature parity on the OSX plugin to the Windows version? Screwing over non-Windows users? Oops better scratch that last one, it's supposed to be a surprise!
Ted may I suggest you get back to evangelising Adobe which IS NOT the same as bashing MS. Give me ammo as to why me and my clients should use Flex/Flash not why they shouldn't use any other technology that dares to offer an alternative choice.
LOL this is too funny, great entertainment.
It's obvious though (and I agree with Ted on this one) that MS is playing a copycat game and they have a lot of convincing to do before I will pick up one of their tools. History tells me that they're likely to overpromise and underdeliver.
A full on headbutt. Well said Ted, but I worry - such a forceful defense suggests a certain amount of trepidation. Watch the opposition closely, keep 10 steps ahead. Give us your faithfuls no reason to doubt that we are Numero Uno. After all where would Coke be without Pepsi.
So... you have to wait a few months to study it, but you already know that it is 80% less powerfull, you must be an accountant... I have actually compared it already and SilverLight has many more possibilities and is way more flexible than Flash.
Regarfing distribution, you probably never heard of Windows Update, MS will reach Flash penetration levels in two months or less.
So, does nobody else care that M$ is losing market share daily? Perhaps they should get their core products in order before they take on the daunting task of chasing the justifiable market-leader in a new segment.
Okay, maybe we could get some response to Apollo from MS? Here we have Adobe trying to fit themselves onto the desktop, a platform that MS have addressed extremely successfully for a long time. Does this mean that Apollo is a dead duck and that we should all sell our Adobe stocks?
I tend to agree with the post about Windows Update and Silverlight as well - dream on if you think it isn't going to go global in a short time - all those developers with MS experience now have a new target.
Hey Ted,
I'm 95% with you, except that I disagree with you saying the marketing was spot-on. I think it sucked:
Silverlight: Microsoft Vaporware Video
-Joe
Microsoft is pretty good at the copycat game:
+ Unix --> DOS
+ Mac OS --> Windows
+ Netscape --> IE
+ QuickTime/Real --> Windows Media
+ WordPerfect/Visicalc --> Office
+ etc...
And they dominated market share with all those, leaving the originals in the dust.
So it's understandable that Ted would be a bit grouchy.
I wouldn't trust any Microsoft products at all in other platforms. 85% of people including those that work for Microsoft don't even know the history on how Microsoft became Microsoft. In the 70's he fooled a student in selling him the DOS, then he stole Steve Jobs software and made it into his own ( you all know, when Microsoft worked for Apple because he fell in love with their first Computer "Lisa") well yea. Humm, reminds me... I had a picture of Gates with his Apple shirt, i wonder if I can google it. But I would not be suprise if they try to do the same with adobe. You know sending his spies. I mean look at their wallpapers for Silverlight, it looks exactly like Apple wallpapers, couldn't they be more original??? I mean it's just wallpapers. I wonder how many Apple Computers they have in Microsoft, i mean if they wish to compete with Adobe. There no way I will be switching from Flash CS3 to what ever they use to make that thing they have. Adobe has the best people when it comes to this. They can only be better if they buy Adobe. The Apollo is not their main thing, and so far as an alpha is coming out pretty good. It's only Alpha Version, imagine when they finish it. And this is just the begining for them when it comes to this. But my answer to this.... Adobe with all the programmers from Macromedia, they don't stand a chance.
I'm having trouble with the Silverlight plugin in Safari. if I play the demo on their website, it keeps taking me to the plugin download page. And if I click on the download movie, it plays audio but no video.
I agree with DannyT, I really can't see that these sort of posts help Adobe in any way, and it certainly doesn't help us developers.
While I'm at it, I wish Scott Barnes would grow up to!
I don't know if this Silver thing is going to be that great, especially working on Mac. They still haven't made Windows Media Player work that great in Macs. I don't know about you guys, but I tested Window Media Player on more than 5 Macs and everytime a movie is played the fans just start to speed up, never that problem with Quicktime or Flash. I think we'll see the same problem with this other thing.
"So, does nobody else care that M$ is losing market share daily? Perhaps they should get their core products in order before they take on the daunting task of chasing the justifiable market-leader in a new segment. "
You're kiding right :)
Anywho you can use both Silverlight and Flash technology, we aren't saying it's either one or the other.. I drink Coke but in some stores I have to drink Pepsi because it's on offer - point context will dictate the use, not blogs :)
This is the most bias opinion I have ever seven. If Adobe's flash is head by you, Flash would just be another netscape in 5 years also. Gaining market share is about what features product has and what development tool developer can use. Eclipse base development tool still far harder to use than Visual Studio base tool. I would not deny that Microsoft is a copy cat, so what!
Ted, you rock... I couldn't have said it better myself... however, there is one thing. MS is the WORST at Mareting! Go to their main site for silverlight, and they dont even explain why we should use it!
Once you see the $ in MS, you know that Ted has no credibility. And his follow-up to it just enforces that he has no credibility.
By your logic a great deal of MS staff has no credibility. I worked for MS for years (and left a couple of years ago due to the sales-crazed nature of the place) and Adobe was commonly referred to as "Adope". I'm sure this persists today.
From past efforts, there is reason to doubt MS will put the dedicated horsepower behind this product that Adobe has behind the Flash Player and suite of products; demonstrated unwillingness to go the distance before does exist (I can't remember the name of the product, but as long ago as 1998 or so MS put out a timeline-based animation player and dev tool, with grandly announced plans to make it all VB aware etc...at the time, they probably stood a better chance of gaining ground in fact).
And anybody who really, really knows MS products and how they work, will never believe that MS will create a product intended to run virtually the same way, with all the same features, on every platform.
One example, much more common in the RIA world than MS evidently thinks; Apollo Apps currently use Flex Data Services. These services are installed into any J2EE compliant server. I have already had a need to deploy an AS3 rich client dependent on these services (for chat, it works great and is braindead easy) in three environments; mac (at the designer shop), linux (on the hosted box), and PCs (for the supporting developer).
The dataservices war dropped right into tomcat on all three, mysql set right up on all three (5+ with stored procs is acceptable), and of course the Flash code has no problem at all with any of it.
For numerous reasons, the ease of this deployment, and this completely flexible work model, would be impossible if the selection was silverlight.
And maybe that's where the $ comes in, and can be understandable (though snarky, true).
You want to use OUR product, buy OUR platform, and OUR developer tools, and now OUR design/animation tool. If you don't buy all of it (and this is VERY standard MS speak, "you are not getting the full benefit of the Windows integrated platform").
By your logic a great deal of MS staff has no credibility. I worked for MS for years (and left a couple of years ago due to the sales-crazed nature of the place) and Adobe was commonly referred to as "Adope". I'm sure this persists today.
From past efforts, there is reason to doubt MS will put the dedicated horsepower behind this product that Adobe has behind the Flash Player and suite of products; demonstrated unwillingness to go the distance before does exist (I can't remember the name of the product, but as long ago as 1998 or so MS put out a timeline-based animation player and dev tool, with grandly announced plans to make it all VB aware etc...at the time, they probably stood a better chance of gaining ground in fact).
And anybody who really, really knows MS products and how they work, will never believe that MS will create a product intended to run virtually the same way, with all the same features, on every platform.
One example, much more common in the RIA world than MS evidently thinks; Apollo Apps currently use Flex Data Services. These services are installed into any J2EE compliant server. I have already had a need to deploy an AS3 rich client dependent on these services (for chat, it works great and is braindead easy) in three environments; mac (at the designer shop), linux (on the hosted box), and PCs (for the supporting developer).
The dataservices war dropped right into tomcat on all three, mysql set right up on all three (5+ with stored procs is acceptable), and of course the Flash code has no problem at all with any of it.
Three environments, same exact code. As a developer working for multiple clients, I NEED that flexibility or I lose work, and I don't get it from MS. For numerous reasons, the ease of this deployment, and this completely flexible work model, would be impossible if the selection was silverlight.
And maybe that's where the $ comes in, and can be understandable (though snarky, true).
You want to use OUR product, buy OUR platform, and OUR developer tools, and now OUR design/animation tool (not to mention video sound image formats yada yada). If you don't buy and use all of it (and this is VERY standard MS speak) "you are not getting the full benefit of the Windows integrated platform".
Sure, I'll poke around the tech, probably even get pretty good with it. But recommend it as a solution for anything other than a completely Windows-centric environment (I don't consider just being able to run the player on a Mac as qualifying)? Not by a longshot.
By your logic a great deal of MS staff has no credibility. I worked for MS for years (and left a couple of years ago due to the sales-crazed nature of the place) and Adobe was commonly referred to as "Adope". I'm sure this persists today.
From past efforts, there is reason to doubt MS will put the dedicated horsepower behind this product that Adobe has behind the Flash Player and suite of products; demonstrated unwillingness to go the distance before does exist (I can't remember the name of the product, but as long ago as 1998 or so MS put out a timeline-based animation player and dev tool, with grandly announced plans to make it all VB aware etc...at the time, they probably stood a better chance of gaining ground in fact).
And anybody who really, really knows MS products and how they work, will never believe that MS will create a product intended to run virtually the same way, with all the same features, on every platform.
One example, much more common in the RIA world than MS evidently thinks; Apollo Apps currently use Flex Data Services. These services are installed into any J2EE compliant server. I have already had a need to deploy an AS3 rich client dependent on these services (for chat, it works great and is braindead easy) in three environments; mac (at the designer shop), linux (on the hosted box), and PCs (for the supporting developer).
The dataservices war dropped right into tomcat on all three, mysql set right up on all three (5+ with stored procs is acceptable), and of course the Flash code has no problem at all with any of it.
Three environments, same exact code. As a developer working for multiple clients, I NEED that flexibility or I lose work, and I don't get it from MS. For numerous reasons, the ease of this deployment, and this completely flexible work model, would be impossible if the selection was silverlight.
And maybe that's where the $ comes in, and can be understandable (though snarky, true).
You want to use OUR product, buy OUR platform, and OUR developer tools, and now OUR design/animation tool (not to mention video sound image formats yada yada). If you don't buy and use all of it (and this is VERY standard MS speak) "you are not getting the full benefit of the Windows integrated platform".
Sure, I'll poke around the tech, probably even get pretty good with it. But recommend it as a solution for anything other than a completely Windows-centric environment (I don't consider just being able to run the player on a Mac as qualifying)? Not by a longshot.
I apologize for the triple post, evidently hitting the return button in the word verification field submits your post without warning.
The last post in the order is the final one.
""So, does nobody else care that M$ is losing market share daily? Perhaps they should get their core products in order before they take on the daunting task of chasing the justifiable market-leader in a new segment. "
You're kiding right :)"
You must be blind if you think M$ hasn't lost any market share. I, for one, will never run Vista. And all the people I buy and set-up computers for, won't either. Once they see Ubuntu and OS X they don't even question the move. And I couldn't tell you how many developers I've seen jumping ship.
"Regarfing distribution, you probably never heard of Windows Update, MS will reach Flash penetration levels in two months or less."
How delusional. There is no way that will work unless M$ can figure out how to secretly install windows update on other OSes. Of course I still refuse to install the .NET framework on anything.
I had Windows since Windows 95 was available, untill 2003. I had to buy another computer and went with a Mac this time since they also had thet Virtual PC for Mac. But honestly the Virtual PC sucked, it was too slow. But I started to get more into Mac and I have to say once you go Mac you never go Back! Now with these Mac Intels I can install Windows with Parallels, but to be honest I haven't been using it that much. I found it much easier to work in the Mac OSX, and I'm sure everybody who touches one do too. Now with all these Apple stores everywhere in the world people are getting there hand on them. Before they weren't too much applications made for Apple, now you can find about anything you want. People are finding it more useful. I have 10 people in my family that have bought an Apple computer just because they test my computer. As you seen Adobe are recently coming out with all these Beta versions for the Mac first. Windows later. I'm not saying this like I'm a " I'll die for any thing that is Mac" kind of guy. I do have to open up my Parallels to do testing on Windows sometimes for all those Windows users, that's pretty much it. I know a lot of people that talk so wrong on Apple, while they're holding an Ipod in their hands. But I tell you I'm not a Windows hater, I love both. I mean that XBox 360 isn't that bad. I just think that tomorrow people will be using Macintosh systems more and developers will focus more on Mac. The only way Silverlight would be something to me, if someone comes out with a plugin to export as Silverlight on a Adobe product as an option. This way I can export whatever in Flash and Silverlight for those customers that want that, if.... 100% of my customers wants flash and most need Mac applications, I go buy what they need.
sorry for the misspelling
Mr. Anonymous
Linux on the desktop is a complete flop and OSX is still tied to Apple hardware. Microsoft isn't losing any marketshare and is actually gaining marketshare in the server space.
I'm sure it's nice to live in a fantasy world with the other slashdorks, but at some point in time you have to come to grips with reality.
Ted,I see that you hate .Net and MS but from a developer perspective, SilverLight means a lot to bring the Windows Like rich UI to the Web.
Im sorry,I know I am just a student and am not qualified to comment on your assumptions but I believe in technology powering us,no matter if MS is good at few things and Adobe is good at other.
So,lets embrace this technology and see if it delivers,hope it would!
Microsoft consistently downplays Linux, which I find interesting, as it is EXACTLY what IBM used to do to Windows (i.e. OS2, which actually was a great product). And, of course, the venerable Digital.
Look what happened...
Windows is 30ish, Linux is in it's relative infancy. Three years ago I never even had to think about Linux, now I have an Ubuntu box and actually check code on it (and even a Mac).
Windows is primarily successful due to the fact that more apps are built for it; that app-dev model was generally a hardcore coder one. Technologies now allow for much lighter weight development; i.e., an Apollo email client, which will run on anything (as opposed to behemoth Outlook).
The change is coming; I'm not a Linux fan per se. But I have to acknowledge that it has grown enough to become a reality of my daily work if I want to appeal to any client as a GUI developer, and it has done so in spite of Microsoft's best efforts to discredit it.
My experience with a little host reselling has also consistently validated the fact that professional web hosts will recommend a Linux box for optimal stability. Many hosts have to discount Windows servers to sell them.
I'm scared of Microsoft's interest in WPF. I'm sure it poses a serious threat.
I mean, after all... look what happened when they tried to take down another market leader. Remember 'Zune'?
Well written and correct.
What Microsoft doesn't realize is that their designer workflows are horrible and haven't confronted the fact that they'll never take away adobe photoshop and the wonderful adobe products that ALL designers use and 99% of them are on macs.
If they think that they are somehow going to whim away designers from their toolsets and start developing for WPF and Silverlight then they're dreaming.
Apollo and flex rule and every java developer knows that.
I think its worth to look at which browser is the most used one here, and that MS will push in Silverlight into it with some autoupdate. So the penetration rate of ppl who has it installed could be several millions within a short period of time. The question is if MS will convince ppl to start making RIA in Silverlight.
http://flexed.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/silverlight-sparkle-and-flex/
Let me break it down to everyone here wastign their time bad mouthing MS. Microsoft builds products for DEVELOPERS, and DEVELOEPRS RULE THE DIGITAL WORLD! PERIOD. Microsoft has conquered would be gaints more often than the machines have conquered Zion and yes, they ARE getting exceedingly good at it. Its a very simple formula, 1) get market presence though $ and extensive marketing (so developers feel confident someone will be using their software), 2) show develoeprs all the cool things thay can do through coding against this 'promised' feature set, 3) spend 7 years and 100 updates adding little features here and there to keep the developers excited. The probrem i have ALWAYS had with Macromedia is complete and utter lack of understanding of what developers truely want. i am struggling to see how a design focused house like adobe is going to do any better. The truth of the matter is that the day a new exciting DEVELOPER centric, not design centric OS/Platform/technology emerges from somewhere, anywhere. The better the chances of MS going down. Linux would be NOTHING right now if it wasn't for Java and back then people were jumping ship from microsoft faster than i could say Jack Sparrow. Get a clue and stop dogging your future boss fancy boy.
My personal opinion is that Adobe should concentrate more on linux. Microsoft is alive because of Windows, kill windows and the Microsoft will fall too. At the moment Linux is becoming always a more popular alternative! Also all the cool features implemented in Vista can be done with Beryl for Linux (Check YouTube videos). Btw - Linux is free! Beryl is free, Vista ...
As to ted; it is a little silly to accuse Microsoft of wanting to make money .. I mean that is obvious for a corporation. I would not like to be inesting in a company (in this case Adobe) that thinks it otherwise!
Cosigning that guy that talked about MS' dev tools.
You're gonna see a *lot* of site builders that do not use Flash, or use it minimally, adopt Silverlight.
Why? Cos it plugs into the Visual Studio experience, and that my friends is the best IDE in the world, and a lot of people know it.
It will also change streaming media.
On the server side, Flash streaming is laughable compared to Windows Media streaming. A lot of people know that too. Silverlight unlocks all the potential of the Windows Media server for the first time on both Windows and Mac.
Developers, like myself, are definitely looking forward to Silverlight. I'm especially excited about it being seamless with .Net framework and WPF. The possibilities are *endless* when you have full-fledged programming power on your hands and Flash-like interactivity.
MS has recently shaped up quite a bit. Visual Studio.Net is truly in a class of its own, way superior to other IDEs. C# and .Net is what Java should have been right from the start. I'm impressed with IE7, especially with the fact that MS managed to reduce the technical lead Firefox had on IE6 *easily*. Look at what MS did with XBox - in a market where they had absolutely no presence, they just went ahead and became a force to be reckoned with.
Make no mistake - Silverlight will have impact simply because it comes from MS. MS may not be great innovators, but they copy and re-implement very, very well.
If I were Adobe, I'd be sleeping a lot less!
Wow, how completely negative of you. I'm a Flash developer and I don't want this kind of negativity associated with my peers. Try to be a little bit nicer, you'll go further and might actually convince someone rather than preaching to the choir.
"Make no mistake - Silverlight will have impact simply because it comes from MS. MS may not be great innovators, but they copy and re-implement very, very well."
I don't think anyone can disagree with that. If Microsoft wants a market, it WILL fight tooth and nail for it. And I agree, this is both good and bad for the developer and for the market in itself.
It's good mainly because competition drives innovation, prices and creativity. It's bad because... well, some of us have seen the web for a while and we know how it felt to code for different versions of different browsers under different OS's. Let's just hope the industry learned a lesson.
Personally, I would advice to abstract self from technology and the company. Focus on the business purpose and need. I am a UI person. I develop UI in multiple languages which ever suites the requirement better. Right now, I have been working with Flex for over a year now. Before that I was swimming around in Ajax.
When Silverlight/WPF/Sparkle sees day light. I would really like to look into it. Maybe it would be a better choice for a particular project than ajax or flex or XUL or whatever.
What the customer/user wants in the context of the business requirement is the prime factor here.
silverlight begin the war. Flex is open source and SilverLight might open source the silverlight alpha 1.1 DLR. Who will? both might not win or lose. Both might live happily after
"I will be covering the features they are missing in depth in the coming months as the MSFUD clears"
A.K.A. You don't really know anything about the tech, you mainly just know you want them to fail.
"Seeing as the CLR didn't make the version 1.0 release, this is a dead looser. JavaScript is inconsistent across browsers in both API's and in performance. Depending on JavaScript to power Silverlight is a mistake in my book."
JavaScript is very consistent across browsers, the DOM and surrounding object model environment is not consistent, but typical JavaScript within Silverlight executes within the unified Silverlight environment. Read up before spraying nonsense.
"Silverlight XAML doesn't stream!"
You can fetch documents from the server asynchronously (AKA "Stream"), you can fetch new XAML documents asynchronously and parse them into Silverlight objects. I don't really understand what you are talking about here...
"Depending on JavaScript to power Silverlight is a mistake in my book."
You do realize Flash entirely depends on JavaScript right? Or should I say, a butchered version of JavaScript (AKA Action Script). Not to mention one of the best advantages of Silverlight is that you can use about 4-5 different languages.
This is similar to the war between C# and JAVA a few years ago. Silverlight is based on a robust WPF technology, which is not just a presentation layer but a total UI framework. Combined with C#, excellent tools like Expression Blend and debugging support, Microsoft Silverlight will kick Flash. Probably flash will still be used for Ads in the future but for real interactive web applications nobody will use this crap.
"This is similar to the war between C# and JAVA a few years ago."
"Silverlight is based on a robust WPF technology, which is not just a presentation layer but a total UI framework."
Please tell me if I'm wrong, I also do not look at current MS Windows programming trends, but wasn't this WPF thing released together with .NET 3.0 last year, the end? I would be really much more careful saying here "robust"...
"Probably flash will still be used for Ads in the future but for real interactive web applications nobody will use this crap."
To be honest, I found neither Flash nor this Silverlight thing as a good framework for "applications". If I understand this thing correctly - it is something like ActiveX 2.0 plus some presentation bells and whistless. Am I right? You know applications are not all about presentation. You have to have some kind of backend. From my undertanding (I've never used Flash, Flex nor SL) Flex provides this with simpe J2EE components, and Silverlight with .NET coponents - a'm I right? If Yes, I will assure You that this thing won't gather more than 30-40% of (web) applications share. Not to mention that most of regular web usesr really hate when they have to downolad something to just run an application. I, for one, never ever used non HTML/AJAX/DHTML web "applications" in my life. Never.
Lima
http://weblogs.asp.net/jezell/archive/2007/05/03/silverlight-vs-flash-the-developer-story.aspx
I agree with the post that asks Adove to compare Apollo with WIndows for desktop applications, if they're going to compare silverlight to flash.
Microsoft is definitely the leader in desktop and Adobe is the leader in web application software. However, with Adobe's history of excellence and MS history of non-excellence, the truth is easy to see.
I'd be on Adobe any day. Especially since MS is using all thier might ($$) and they have a lot more than Adobe and still coming in as an underdog.
They really should user thier brains to introduce something invative.
And if you check browser stats, FireFox is chigging along eating market share each year. MS has forgotten it's roots and is just a money hungry machine looking to please investors.
Developers?
The future of the web is not about developers. Ask TV and Music what just happened to them.
Development will/is/has become WYSIWYG at an alarming rate. The winner will be whoever wins the "Cool points" race.
Even now 99% of my day to day aps don't require much more than drop and drag development.
Sounds like Ted$ is quite sore about the $ hehe... sad...
Doods, everything is about the money, even the whole fight between both appz y money so stop being lame.
At least for me, i am very skeptic on using ms software since i've had very bad experiences, and i'm not using any ms tool right now. Thus i cannot use silverlight. Those are the two main reason for choosing Flex over Silverlight. Its ms and i can't run it. Besides that, you have to think about context, maybe you are not a developer and all those posibilities for the same job. I'm a designer and sometimes we do some simple web apps where flex is perfect for the job. I think you have to contextualize. I don't believe in a tool for everything. It gets too complicated.
Bye
To the person who said
"then he stole Steve Jobs software and made it into his own"
Apple stole the whole "Windows" concept from XeroxPARC. No brownie points for Apple on that one. And increasingly Apple are simply refining things they see elsewhere than truly inventing anything. They are just bloody good at it.
Silverlight will be a success, because it has .Net support integrated. And it won't matter if it doesn't run on Linux for the same reason that it failing to support HTML and CSS properly had almost no effect on IE6. Big corporations role out MS technology at the click of a button. Soon this will include Silverlight opening up the Intranet world for it.
Silverlight MAY never replace Flash as the number one browser plugin, but it doesn't matter. They have the Intranet market cornered before they've even started. And that's huge.
Another piece of garbage post that was created for the sole purpose of putting the '$' in MS. Another post that has little or nothing to do with Linux turned into a rah rah session for Linux. I have been hearing about the eroding market share of Windows for 7 years now but the truth is Linux has taken nothing from Windows and never will. The question here should be how Ted knows so much about what Silverlight can and cannot do but has nothing to back it up. I for one think it is ironic that MS gets bashed for not wanting products to compete with theirs but when they put out a product that competes with something everyone cries "copycat". Get a life people, EVERY COMPANY IS OUT TO MAKW MONEY ... even your precious LINUX vendors.
You must be blind if you think M$ hasn't lost any market share. I, for one, will never run Vista. And all the people I buy and set-up computers for, won't either. Once they see Ubuntu and OS X they don't even question the move. And I couldn't tell you how many developers I've seen jumping ship.
"Regarfing distribution, you probably never heard of Windows Update, MS will reach Flash penetration levels in two months or less."
How delusional. There is no way that will work unless M$ can figure out how to secretly install windows update on other OSes. Of course I still refuse to install the .NET framework on anything.
Unless your Michael Dell I don't think the statements "will never run Vista. And all the people I buy and set-up computers for, won't either." has anyone at MS losing sleep. The facts are well documented. Windows still has over 95% of the market. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean everyone else jumped ship. How many coperations use Linux as a workstation? What is that percentage? Anyway, who cares use what you want.
Well, it's easy to type M$. Adobe should be *grateful* they have competition in the RIA sector, because they're looking an awful lot like a monopoly to me... there was another much-reviled company sat in that position a few years ago, can anyone remember their name?
I remember a few years back how pervasive the director (or was it shockwave?) plugin was. Flash was a huge step back from that, in terms of functionality and extensibility... yet the new generation rises up and proclaims flash the new king.
Children, get out of the sand pit.
Apple stole the whole "Windows" concept from XeroxPARC. No brownie points for Apple on that one.
True, Apple was not the first to come up with the "Windows" concept. But they bought the "Windows" and point-click-mouse technology from Xerox( Apple did not steal it ). Xerox thought the point and click technology was a stupid.
"M$" seriously people grow-up every company is out to make money. Microsoft is a good company, it provides many jobs and is the reason why computers are so cheap today. MS is a marketing genius.
With that being said, the only ms product I use is Office for mac.
Anyway, Sliverlight on the design side will fail because most designers prefer Apple and Adobe products. On the development side, 40% of developers are dedicated to .NET/MS/VB platform (SQLServer/ASP.NET/C#) they will probably go for a Sliverlight frontend. The other 60% are dedicated to the J2EE/OSS/Unix platform (Mysql/JSP/PHP/Java) they will probably choose Flex or most likely a AJAX frontend.
Silverlight is no replacement for Flash - it's more like flex. Meant to build web enabled applications - not animation-ish apps.
In reaction to the 0% market penetration comments... laughable. After they make it a required update it will have 40% penetration overnight. The rest will come slowly.
I've toyed with flash and it looks like it would be very difficult to try and build an enterprise style app with - wouldn't even want to think about managing multiple developers or teams with the tools I've seen.
Don't get into the calling MS a copycat game either – Java has been around forever and ultimately it's been doing the same thing as flash forever. Who copied who?
.NET is a beautiful language to develop with - about time they give it better web based tools - simple as that.
As a consultant, let me say that I will recommend what is fastest. Why? The faster I finish an engagement, the faster I move to the next one. Rates vary so I may get a better one next or I may have bigger opportunities on the next go around.
Silverlight looks better IMO because it works in VS. VS allows for very high productivity levels and, with stuff like LINQ on the move, .NET will be hard to beat.
This isn't religious to me, it is all about the money. I will recommend a direction based upon my skillset and Silverlight fits that bill. It seems easy to develop to and I get the .NET framework.
I probably would have done Flex but when I heard about it first, they wanted some insane amount for the server side ($12K, I think). that killed it immediately: haven't looked back since.
Call me Anonymou$ but I am comfortable with that name.
I will recommend Silverlight to my clients for web development. And, anyone who just looks at Silverlight 1.0 is missing the boat: 1.1 is where it is at. For .NET people, 1.1 promises the elimination of JavaScript/HTML hell. That means shorter dev cycles ==> possibility for fixed rates ==> more cash per hour.
Ted,
I'm coming at this with an open mind, and after reading this, I take both what you and MS have to say with more than a grain of salt.
I like what you say, but my concern is that you need to keep your "religion" out while just stating the facts, as other folks here have said in other ways.
I do like that you have gotten most of the facts accurately.
I think, however, that you underestimate what Microsoft has done, and can continue to do. You emphasise a few of it's past weeknesses while avoiding to mention its strengths from both a technology and business perspective.
From a technology perspective, MS can easily address the shortcomings of any of it's products. The question is --not-- whether it can - the question is whether it --chooses-- to do so from a revenue perspective. They can also do this in a way with far more agility than any other company's offerings.
I wish this reality were different, and had expected, through my 20 year career in IT, that Sun, Oracle, Adobe, and IBM would have stepped up to the plate with a greater level of usability and agility in the desktop and business development software marketplace.
From a business perspective, such as from the viewpoint of the one I work for, we have an even deeper problem.
Many businesses have historically had a closed mind to Adobe when it comes to Adobe enterprise software development as well as Flash. I ran into this directly when trying to convince them to sign up for Flex 2.
In general they've seen many Flash presentations crash in browsers, think the development tools are expensive, believe that developers will need to be trained in proprietary languages or proprietary versions of existing ones, and feel they won't find inexpensive development resources who know these.
This corporate opinion is reenforced by Adobe's lack of cost and time effective training for developers interested in their products.
Specifically, Adode's one month product evaluations don't cut it given the complexity of their products, and the time needed to demostrate viability in a corporate environment, which includes not only development but presentation to many levels of managers and executives for purchase approval and a change in culture.
Compare this to Microsoft where I can now download and start using Silverlight for free, and .Net for 90 days.
Most businesses already have some .Net development happening, and have an MSDN license. So the real cost for me of getting aquainted with Silverlight is 0. The cost for me to get into Flex 2 is $600 of my own money since my company won't spend that on R&D for a technology they think is alien.
The tragedy is that once they see Flex in action, versus Silverlight, Managers and other architects in my organization would see the not neccessarily silver light.
Oh, another Flash fanboy!
Now, go see SL 1.1 Alpha or check the performance tests and rewrite the article again :) And don't forget the "Alpha" part...
Now, here are my thoughts... ActionScript is bloated crap. Actually, compared to C# for example it looks as a bad joke. The solution - Flex! Too bad it is build on top of the very same crap :)
You can expect all SL plugin code to be integrated in all MS operating systems in very short time, right? Automatic Update anyone?
MS killed lots of companies/products before. And it seems they are very serious about SL. Beware! :)
Development tools... there is nothing like VS2005 on the market these days. It is simple the best :)
Platform... There is nothing like .NET these days. And just imagine the number of VB or C# programmers who will be able to produce SL applications in exactly the same tool where they produce their ASP.NET applications :)