JD on EP

The only way I see Silverlight becoming as pervasive as Flash is if Microsoft were to start bundling it with future OS/browser upgrades. But even then, Silverlight probably won't enjoy the widespread support/recognition that Flash has. As a web developer, I've installed the plugin just to see what the fuss is about. Your average Joe isn't going to give half a crap...

As far as content is concerned, I've seen only a few Microsoft-centric demos of it, and none were very impressive.

This is coming from a pro-Adobe viewpoint...I use the Adobe/(Macromedia) toolset.

Do you see how Google did really well with indexing the web and marketing it?

And how Netscape use to have the only "good" web browser available?

What about how Adobe developed the vector Postscript format?

The list goes on...what about Flash player?

Well, Microsoft is there to bring in the competition...with,

Google: Search
MSFT: Live

Netscape: Browser
MSFT: IE

Adobe: PDF
MSFT: XPS

Macro/Adobe: Flash Player
MSFT: Silverlight

Maps, Outlook, IIS, SQL Server 2005 Xpress, etc...

As long as there's NOT a monopoly, we thankfully all have software choices...

Oh. and by the way, I think the NBA thing you mentioned is a sham...

Why on earth would a company want to go with an unproven technology like Silverlight, when they could go with a proven one like Flash player?

The wonderful marketing media...what a sham. I personally think that at the present time, Silverlight is horrible compared to what the Flash player now offers.

Who knows, maybe Silverlight will actually be compatible with ALL browsers and OS's including Apple and Linux----someday.

marshall

>> But even then, Silverlight probably won't enjoy the widespread support/recognition that Flash has.

Just don't forget the large number of developers that are already using the technologies behind Silverlight.

For example, our company has several .NET-based desktop products that we need on the web as well. We have built simplified Flex or Flash versions for some of them, but the IDEs and AS3 are so far behind VS2008 and C# 3.0 that it feels downright painful to work with them.
When Silverlight ships, we'll be able to publish our existing products to the web with only minor alterations. Not only does it save us the porting work, but we'll have the same codebase for both standalone and online applications.
And for us, plugin penetration is not an issue, if we require Silverlight then our customers will install it.

I think Silverlight will start out as a corporate plugin where .NET technologies are already in place, for intranets and b2b solutions. Also, the sheer number of existing .NET developers that suddenly have an easy way to deliver their programs in-browser makes it fairly certain that we'll see a lot of Silverlight content being published, in the beginning only as demos or tests maybe (like theWPFBlog :) - you won't be able to buy all of them, Adobe!), but those will also help increase penetration.

Agree with Jonas on "Silverlight offers real benefits to some people".

If a company has an existing Windows Media infrastructure, for instance, then it makes sense to try specifying the Silverlight plugin, and pushing those viewership costs onto the audience. Businesses should explore this, and for some it does make sense.

My beef is with the gap between perception and reality, though. This "common programming model in a cross-browser plugin" campaign started in Sept 05, was revealed in March 06, was replaced by a JavaScript engine in Dec 06, was announced as returning in April 07, and in Nov 07 was announced for some type of preview release with even more features in March 08. It's hard to predict how it will turn out.

That's why sentences like this worry me: "When Silverlight ships, we'll be able to publish our existing products to the web with only minor alterations." From what I've read from Microsoft staff, the opposite path may be much easier.

jd/adobe

>> Sounds to me like .NET, Microsoft, Windows, tunnel vision, proprietary, lock-in, tied down, one system, limited reach, restricted audience, build it and people will come....to MY operating system.

I prefer open standards, widest reach, unlimited audience, universal plug and play, build it and people will choose it...because they can STAY with their OS of choice.

Ok...I admit...I use MS Windows too...BUT...the ideal software should NOT care or FORCE me to purchase one or the other OS's in order to run it.

I develop training systems/simulations--my [unnamed] customer primarly uses Windows across our global enterprise. Flash is used primarily because it has a light footprint, consistent interface across any OS/browser, is portable from Web-to-Desktop, and has capable, dedicated resources toward it's growth as a universal player.

Having said this, and remaining neutral, if Flash development had NOT continued to flourish as it has in the past, ANY capable player would step in to take it's place as the #1 universal player.[given time of course].

So.....hats off to Macromedia/Adobe!! Take a bow! Now all you've got to do is keep listening to your developers/customers and investing in high quality improvements that take it to the next level--Gemini, Apollo, Pluto...the next galaxy!

Cheers.

marshall
Super Developer Extraordinaire
Alpha Geek/Cable Guy
40 yr old Dr. Spock wanna'be.

I too was confounded about the specifications of WPF/E and Silverlight 1.0, as they were so utterly uninspiring (using JavaScript etc). The .NET version of Silverlight, however, is on the right track, and has a roadmap that is very reassuring, e.g:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/11/29/net-web-product-roadmap-asp-net-silverlight-iis7.aspx

We won't know until the beta has shipped, but the .NET team normally delivers high-quality stuff (well, the ASP.NET subteam excluded, so I hope they haven't been too involved here...).

Marshall: Silverlight 2.0 targets OSX as well as Windows. The Linux OSS port, Moonlight, will probably take a while though, since they need to implement .NET 3.5 first, and they're not completely done with 2.0 yet.

Jonas wrote: "We won't know until the beta has shipped."

Agreed. We won't know the actual technical capabilities until after a developer release, and won't know the actual business capabilities until after consumer deployment.

Until then, the series of predictions is useful, but not conclusive.

jd/adobe

I'm no Adobe/Macromedia fanboy, as I am sure jd will attest, but as with any rhetorical 'push', it's no good pumping up the logos when the ethos is sorely lacking.

The gist appears to be that Microsoft's huge and loyal developer base can somehow be leveraged to give Microsoft back a slice of the online multimedia plugin market, because .net and C# are irresistably practical.

More likely, we'll see Comp.Sci. folks claiming that they too can do multimedia blindfolded with one hand behind their back, because Silverlight is automatically going to become part of the .Net workflow.

While that might happen in some cases, I don't see how they're going to gain the mindshare of a toolset which has a tradition of being accessible to - even adored by - creative types.

Multimedia developers are primarily artists of one sort or another. They may also be hobbyist programmers made good, but first and foremost it's the aesthetics and communication which are of interest. They don't care whether AS 3.0 is a less sophisticated, or less 'modern' language than C#, and don't care about special tricks for integrating with some specific back-end technology. (Exhibit A: Macromedia's failure to push coldfusion to the multimedia crowd).

It's worth comparing the situation with the launch of Java. At that time there was a fairly level playing field between Java and Shockwave with Future Splash as the new kid on the block. If anything, Java seemed like the obvious winner, because it was built-in to the browser, and didn't require a plugin to be downloaded.

Most developers seemed to agree that Java applets showed great promise, even (or especially) for multimedia. It was a 'free', mature OOP language which could be all things to all people.

But it was the friendly animation tool with the ludicrous action engine which won out in the end, not least because of Microsoft's successful sabotage of Java. One of the most irritating side effects of that sabotage, for multimedia content developers, is the continuing issues in getting plugin content to talk with the browser.

Now, Actionscript is the first choice for online interactive multimedia, not because it's the world's best scripting language - far from it - but because it's built into an accessible animation tool with some very decent video codecs. They may not be the best codecs money can buy, but they are better than 'good-enough' for most jobs.

Macromedia and Adobe have demonstrated repeatedly that they can 'deliver the goods' with Flash. They've also demonstrated openness towards alternatives and even competitors, and I can't recall any incidents of explicit platform lock-in. (We're not punished for using .php instead of .cfm, for example).

Put simply, Adobe has an ethos which multimedia content developers have already bought into.

Microsoft, on the other hand, gives multimedia content developers the willies. We've all got the MSIE box-model scars to prove it. (After a particularly unforgivable browser-war-crime.)

Microsoft has never delivered a multimedia authoring tool with the reach and ease-of-use of anything from Adobe or Macromedia. They've also got labyrinthine strategy issues to contend with; There's always some other agenda which dictates, for example, that the non-Windows or non-IE release will be late or substandard, and we're invited to be especially grateful, impressed and surprised if there's a Linux version at all.

Microsoft, as software generalists need to recognise that they have a reputation for having limitations - or even outright sabotage - in certain specialist areas, and multimedia content production certainly seems to be one of them.

Brennan: I'm not sure what you're arguing for - that Silverlight can't be successful because of the lack of multimedia-oriented authoring tools? Even though I think it's too early to rule out the toolset for a technology that's doesn't even exist as a beta, it's worth noting that it's much easier for 3rd parties to create authoring tools for XAML/.NET graphics/animation than for SWF, because of its simplicity and open specifications. There are already a few of them out there.

But more importantly, I think Silverlight will primarily be used instead of AJAX or Flex alternatives; for most people, the multimedia capabilities is just sugar on top. Pure multimedia is only a minor business segment after all.

Just realized something else....

When there's a press release about a site using a Silverlight video client, it's ironic that you go to those sites and see Flash. There may be a Silverlight example off to the side, but the Jackass PR prompted me to go to the jackassworld.com site, which uses Flash all over.

Same with other sites advertised as "silverlight wins". They already use Flash, and the press releases don't mention exactly what each website gains by imposing installation costs onto their audiences. Payoffs seem logical, but the press releases avoid the business rationales.

It's just funny to keep visiting publicized Silverlight sites, and instead find lots of Flash.

jd/adobe

Brennan has a valid point, however, the same argument could be used for the Flex platform. For example, Flex is targeted at the Comp.Sci types that would like to partake in the "multimedia/animation" development metaphor. As Brennan says, now we will have Comp.Sci types programming "multimedia" blindfolded with only 3 fingers. (a funny)

But there is really a bigger picture...USER EXPERIENCE--effective communication--simplicity--efficiency.

Not only Microsoft-ites will be wrapping their collective heads around the user "experience", but ALL software companies will be doing this.

Just as Apple has lead the way in designing rich experiences, (I don't even use Apple, but I've seen the experience), the entire world is headed down the inevitable user "experience" path.

As we have improved the developer "experience" from the assembly language days--to the higher level languages of today--we have consistently moved toward easier tools and better experiences. Now that our technology can handle the new multimedia "experiences", we are seeing new developer tools and streamlined workflows.

If we learn anything from history, the end result of our advances in technology will be toward attaining the ultimate "experience" including developer speed/efficiency. And if you follow this path to its logical conclusion, you will see developer tools which provide ultimate simplicity, offering speed and flexibility for everyone, not just the professional developer. In other words, rather than just a framework of drag-n-drop widgets tied together by lines of code--in the future--the lines of code will be at the highest level, or ultimately NO abstract language required. In the future, entire programs will be created by everyone--not just professional developers.

To see where technology is today, we only have to remember how/why it all started in the first place. We're only following the path to simplicity and efficiency which improve the developer "experience".

Hats off to companies like Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Sun Microsystems, and others for advancing technology to that seemingly never ending goal of simplicity.

marshall
Dr. Spock wann'be (kidding of course)