Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Apr 2007 22:22 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces Microsoft has given a go-to-market name for its cross-platform, cross-browser plug-in for delivering the next generation of user experiences and rich Internet applications for the Web. The technology formerly known as WPF/E is now known as Silverlight.
Order by: Score:
Silverlight's competition
by Almafeta on Mon 16th Apr 2007 22:29 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

Interesting. Although it's described as a Flash competitor, Microsoft seems to be skipping the 'web application' bit entirely and going straight to streaming media (a la Youtube and Google Video). Which is kind of sad, because the only thing that comes close to Flash's in-site programming ability is Java, which has its own issues.

I just hope Silverlight stays a technology-based plugin and doesn't become yet another piece of needless malware, a la RealPlayer and QuickTime.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Silverlight's competition
by Javier O. Augusto on Mon 16th Apr 2007 22:44 UTC in reply to "Silverlight's competition"
Javier O. Augusto Member since:
2005-08-10

I agree with you. On the other hand, Sun Microsystem's got a new "technology" under the umbrella that it is _said_ as the next Flash...

let's see....

Reply Score: 2

raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24
RE[3]: Silverlight's competition
by sard on Tue 17th Apr 2007 07:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Silverlight's competition"
sard Member since:
2005-11-16

Unless it has instant, non browser locking startup time they shouldn't even bother.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Silverlight's competition
by FunkyELF on Tue 17th Apr 2007 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Silverlight's competition"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Cool, I just signed up for Chris Oliver's JavaOne session on F3.

I remember seeing this F3 stuff a while back on here. When looking at all the sessions available F3 didn't ring a bell.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Silverlight's competition
by MollyC on Mon 16th Apr 2007 23:29 UTC in reply to "Silverlight's competition"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Microsoft is still addressing the web-app stuff. I assume they'll talk more about it at Mix 07. The NAB conference would naturally be more interested in just the media stuff. From what I've read, the full announcment will be at Mix 07, which takes place at the end of this month.

The "EXPERIENCE SILVERLIGHT" section at the bottom of http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight has some web-app demos.

Today, I've seen some pretty good demo vids showing HD video, web interactivity, and cross platform (including Mac, Safari, Firefox) capabilities:
http://www.beet.tv/2007/04/microsoft_unvei.html

http://on10.net/Blogs/tina/out-with-wpfe-in-with-microsoft-silverli...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Silverlight's competition
by epluribus on Tue 17th Apr 2007 16:07 UTC in reply to "Silverlight's competition"
epluribus Member since:
2007-03-21

I just hope Silverlight stays a technology-based plugin and doesn't become yet another piece of needless malware, a la RealPlayer and QuickTime.


Calling QuickTime a "piece of needless malware" is to seriously misunderstand the importance of QuickTime to the media industry. Oh, and it makes you sound completely misinformed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicktime

I suggest you read that... you may learn a thing or two.

Reply Score: 3

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

It's pretty obvious that he was referring to the QuickTime player. Or at least it should be obvious if you've ever had the misfortune to use the laughably-inept Windows version.

Of course, it's probably not completely accurate to refer to even the QT player as "malware." Malware tends to be invasive, set itself to launch on startup without permission, changes configuration settings without warning, spams users with unwanted onscreen advertisements, etc. Thankfully, the QuickTime player doesn't do any of that kind of stuff.

Reply Score: 5

Rrrestrrrictions...
by Punktyras on Mon 16th Apr 2007 22:43 UTC
Punktyras
Member since:
2006-01-07

</><...>another powerful Internet video output format—one that comes with robust content protection through a native DRM solution."[/i]

Anyone smells a rat?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Rrrestrrrictions...
by IvoLimmen on Tue 17th Apr 2007 07:04 UTC in reply to "Rrrestrrrictions..."
IvoLimmen Member since:
2005-07-06

... and since it's said to be cross-platform: thanks for introducing DRM to Linux!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Rrrestrrrictions...
by Mellin on Tue 17th Apr 2007 07:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Rrrestrrrictions..."
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows and Mac OS X

cross-platform in the microsoft world

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Rrrestrrrictions...
by anda_skoa on Tue 17th Apr 2007 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rrrestrrrictions..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Windows and Mac OS X

cross-platform in the microsoft world


Actually I think in Microsoft terms this is already called "platform independent"

cross-platform is used to refer to software that is available on Windows and Windows/Embedded

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Rrrestrrrictions...
by bornagainenguin on Tue 17th Apr 2007 13:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Rrrestrrrictions..."
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

"Ah-hah!

Now you've caught sight of my cunning plan..." --Bill Gates

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Rrrestrrrictions...
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 17th Apr 2007 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rrrestrrrictions..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"You wouldn't know a subtle plan if it painted itself purple and danced naked on top of a harsichord while singing 'subtle plans are here again.'" -Blackadder

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Edited 2007-04-17 18:23

Reply Score: 3

Sans Media Player.....
by Phloptical on Mon 16th Apr 2007 22:44 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

This is probably wishful thinking, but you think there's any chance that other media players will play these files?

Other than that, I hate seeing another Microsoft "standard" being adopted by so many companies (sight unseen) just because it's Microsoft that put it out.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Sans Media Player.....
by zizban on Mon 16th Apr 2007 22:48 UTC in reply to "Sans Media Player....."
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

How long will it be until you see "This page requires the Silverlight plugin from Microsoft" And this plugin will be Windows only and require Internet Explorer.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Sans Media Player.....
by RGCook on Tue 17th Apr 2007 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Sans Media Player....."
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

However long it takes, I only hope it takes a fraction as long for folks to reject this and send a message that content can be obtained in other ways. The Sheeple will not pander to lock in forever. You heard it here first. hehe

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sans Media Player.....
by markob on Tue 17th Apr 2007 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Sans Media Player....."
markob Member since:
2005-07-06

There is a Firefox plugin available for months. Although I still hope this technology won't be widely adopted, I simply don't trust MS anymore when it comes to web.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sans Media Player.....
by Dekkard on Tue 17th Apr 2007 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Sans Media Player....."
Dekkard Member since:
2006-01-07

you are preaching ot the choir Rev.....

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sans Media Player.....
by twenex on Mon 16th Apr 2007 22:48 UTC in reply to "Sans Media Player....."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

+5 Wise

Reply Score: 0

RE: Sans Media Player.....
by robojerk on Mon 16th Apr 2007 23:09 UTC in reply to "Sans Media Player....."
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

They say it will work on MacOS X and Windows browsers No offical word on Linux/Unix support though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sans Media Player.....
by Laurence on Tue 17th Apr 2007 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Sans Media Player....."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

They say it will work on MacOS X and Windows browsers No offical word on Linux/Unix support though.


Flash isn't exactly great on Linux/UNIX either though. It's a version behind the latest and buggy at that

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sans Media Player.....
by anda_skoa on Tue 17th Apr 2007 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sans Media Player....."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Flash isn't exactly great on Linux/UNIX either though. It's a version behind the latest

Currently not true. It has been in the times before Adobe bought Macromedia.
Adobe has probably more Unix Know-How than Macromedia or more customers deploying it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Sans Media Player.....
by Laurence on Tue 17th Apr 2007 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sans Media Player....."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"

Flash isn't exactly great on Linux/UNIX either though. It's a version behind the latest

reply: Currently not true. It has been in the times before Adobe bought Macromedia.
Adobe has probably more Unix Know-How than Macromedia or more customers deploying it.
"

Just checked and you're right, however that's only happened in the last 3 months and even then it's only for Mozilla/FF. Plus Solaris is still only on version 7.

Personally I think there is a need for an open source alternative to Flash/Silverlight as neither of them really address that well the internets need for a reliable, platform-independent vector graphics mark-up standard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Sans Media Player.....
by anda_skoa on Tue 17th Apr 2007 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sans Media Player....."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Just checked and you're right, however that's only happened in the last 3 months and even then it's only for Mozilla/FF

I agree that it took way to long to have a current version, but they probably had to create the Unix team from scratch, the Macromedia people seemed not to be able to do it.

On the point of "Mozilla/FF only": as far as I know the Mozilla/Netscape plugin API is the only one on Unix, so a plugin for this API should work in all browsers which provide it.
For example, Flash definitely works in Konqueror (always did, even the V9-beta)

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Sans Media Player.....
by Redeeman on Tue 17th Apr 2007 11:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sans Media Player....."
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

And if you think adobes team were, you are sadly mistaken. By some reading on adobeas leading linux team flash dude, you get the impression the guy had never even heard of linux before, or atleast, didnt know a flying thing about it.. And now you may want specifics? well, i for one am most horrified about the whole "flash is delayed because we must dlopen() libasound.so.2 instead of libasound.so!!!! linux is impossible to develop for!!! its hard!!! its illogical!!!"

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sans Media Player.....
by Almafeta on Mon 16th Apr 2007 23:48 UTC in reply to "Sans Media Player....."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Microsoft's VC-1 site (the format that Silverlight concentrates on) states that they developed VC-1 in conjunction with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. The article lists about a dozen companies that are using it, as well as its support in HD DVD and Blu-Ray.

The published standard is $300, and can be purchased in the site I linked below. I'd say there's more than a chance that it'll be supported by other media players; with all the companies supporting it, I think it's probable you'll be able to play them on more than one player.

http://store.smpte.org/product-p/smpte%20421m-2006.htm

Edited 2007-04-16 23:54

Reply Score: 5

RE: Sans Media Player.....
by buff on Tue 17th Apr 2007 13:07 UTC in reply to "Sans Media Player....."
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

This is probably wishful thinking, but you think there's any chance that other media players will play these files?

Microsoft doesn't need other players to play their Silverlight format. They can just push the plugin into IE with their software update mechanism and before you know it people will be using it. It should be interesting to see if this is how they roll it out. I'm putting money on it that it is a 'suggested' update.

I wouldn't be suprised that once they get people using Silverlight they could stop including the Flash plugin in IE and crush yet another competitive media format. The abusive power from a monopoly is a force to be reckoned with.

Edited 2007-04-17 13:11

Reply Score: 3

...
by Hiev on Mon 16th Apr 2007 22:54 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

In my experiece "cross-platform" for microsoft means (MS OS only).

Reply Score: 5

RE: ...
by ThawkTH on Mon 16th Apr 2007 23:09 UTC in reply to "..."
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

<sarcasm>
Hey...It means Home Basic AND Home Ultimate. Maybe Server as well, they haven't decided.

</sarcasm>

Reply Score: 5

RE: crossplatform defined
by g2devi on Mon 16th Apr 2007 23:19 UTC in reply to "..."
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Correction, for Microsoft crossplatform generally means:
* It works perfectly on MS Windows with Microsoft technologies.
* It *may* work (take your chances) on MS Windows with non-Microsoft technologies.
* Mac is supported, but not as well as MS Windows and support generally lags behind MS Windows support.
* Linux is tolerated (if someone else creates a compatibility project), though not supported ("accidents " can happen to the API).

Edited 2007-04-16 23:20

Reply Score: 5

RE: ...
by trenchsol on Tue 17th Apr 2007 04:03 UTC in reply to "..."
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I am afraid I have to agree. They probably ment browser by platform, not OS. Many people didn't like Flash. MS might have success with this.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by Karitku on Tue 17th Apr 2007 12:38 UTC in reply to "..."
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Haha, again OSnews readers strike, 5 points on argument that can be proved false by READING the actual article. Keep this up peeps slashdot is just little a head of you.

Reply Score: 2

Conflict of interest
by sogabe on Mon 16th Apr 2007 22:57 UTC
sogabe
Member since:
2006-04-27

There is conflict of interest between Microsoft and other OSes, so I find it hard to believe anything that puts Microsoft and cross-platform in the same sentence.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Conflict of interest
by indech on Mon 16th Apr 2007 23:47 UTC in reply to "Conflict of interest"
indech Member since:
2005-12-06

Since flash is silverlight's biggest competitor, and not an operating system, since flash is cross-platform, it would be in Microsoft's best interest to have os parity to flash.

Though, I'd call cross-platform support for silverlight a joke currently, without Linux support.

Reply Score: 4

vendor lock in again ?
by cyberkoa on Mon 16th Apr 2007 23:38 UTC
cyberkoa
Member since:
2006-10-18

Will it be the next vendor-lock-in-file-format strategy ?

By putting in another ridiculous patent (silently) similar to MICROS~1 FAT32 short filename and long filename mapping , the users will be fooled again.

Choices are good but give a choice with hidden fence , thank you and not thank you.

Reply Score: 4

I Shall Translate What This Is
by segedunum on Tue 17th Apr 2007 00:10 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Since Microsoft has always been rather uncomfortable about Flash and its pre-installed status, they created their own version in order to try and subvert HTML and open web standards even more than they already have. Should this ever take off, the development of non-Windows version of this will be slowed down dramatically or stopped in order to try and kill the notion of the web on non-Windows platforms. At least, that's the plan.

Reply Score: 4

RE: I Shall Translate What This Is
by Almafeta on Tue 17th Apr 2007 00:23 UTC in reply to "I Shall Translate What This Is"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

At least, that's the plan.

If that were the plan, wouldn't they be misserved by making Silverlight usable with Safari and Firefox?

There's an interesting quote on the Microsoft website: "[Microsoft makes] more software for the Mac than anyone other than Apple itself." Much as I don't like it, it looks like this is another 'baby step' towards being in that same position with Linux.

A few weeks ago, someone here (don't know who, there's no 'search comment' feature for non-paying users) commented that Microsoft should be moving towards a common cross-platform business, using their ability to create APIs and IDEs to sell Microsoft software to people regardless of OS. By putting out another Linux product, it looks like could be going in that direction...

Reply Score: 1

Lettherebemorelight Member since:
2005-07-11

If that were the plan, wouldn't they be misserved by making Silverlight usable with Safari and Firefox?

You would think so, but MS's embrace/extend/extinguish strategy works slightly different than that.

A few weeks ago, someone here (don't know who, there's no 'search comment' feature for non-paying users) commented that Microsoft should be moving towards a common cross-platform business, using their ability to create APIs and IDEs to sell Microsoft software to people regardless of OS. By putting out another Linux product, it looks like could be going in that direction...

That would be interesting (and logical) but I dont see that happening with Gates/Ballmer in control of that company.

Reply Score: 3

someone Member since:
2006-01-12

There's an interesting quote on the Microsoft website: "[Microsoft makes] more software for the Mac than anyone other than Apple itself.

Let's see, there is the Office suite and ... ?! I'd venture to say that many Mac ISVs make more than 1 product for the Mac. They used to have a few more products for the Mac, but they are all discontinued one after another.

Even if you count the components of the Office suite as separate products, Adobe still makes more applications for the Mac than Microsoft.

Reply Score: 5

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

It's actually probably more in terms of sales rather than applications. They did make more products at one point, but it was just no longer worth it for them once Apple started producing its own fundamental apps, like a good mailer and browser.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Let's see, there is the Office suite and ... ?!


I think they mean by volume.

Reply Score: 1

raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

Why subvert HTML? This is a vector graphics user interface markup language that we're talking about here, not a light document markup standard.

Where I see a "subversion" of HTML by Silverlight is when it starts to compete with Flash to see who can create the largest website with an all-vector markup, as is the standard with, say, music band websites.

The problem with that is that, with so much concentration on graphics, we'll have more of those sites which are damn near impossible to navigate with your browser's "Back"/"Forward" buttons.

Plus, if there's any evidence of Microsoft spiting Desktop Linux (not server Linux) users, then this might be the first shot.

I'm hoping that SVG doesn't turn out exactly like Flash or Silverlight in their utter denial of the existence of a "navigational-through-documents" web browser.

"The web isn't a big user interface. It's a series of (text) links!"

Reply Score: 4

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Nothing will subvert HTML. IT is too easy to write, too light and too ubiquitous to get rid of.

MS's product is going after the rich UI market on web pages... providing a highly interactive interface that is competitive with flash and ajax toolkits will be beneficial. If silverlight can beat flash in its features and platform ubiquity, then people will start using sliverlight toolkits to make UIs rather than Flash.

Personally, I think that using flash applets for specific site functions like streaming media, file uploading, etc. is as far as you should go with a flash UI. Too much and you create an unusable (but pretty) experience.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I really doubt that's the plan, in the early 90's, sure, it would be the plan, but MS is not as free to act that way anymore, not with the EU breathing down their necks

Reply Score: 2

Silverlight
by siride on Tue 17th Apr 2007 00:27 UTC
siride
Member since:
2006-01-02

Silverlight is light that's silver and probably bright, kind of like, you know, a Flash. Very creative Microsoft. Then again, this is from the people who brought you Windows (might as well name an operating system "Processes") and Word.

Reply Score: 5

ActiveX
by kev009 on Tue 17th Apr 2007 00:28 UTC
kev009
Member since:
2006-11-30

I'm having deja vu.. [cr]A[p]tiveX (or was it InfectiveX) all over again?!

Reply Score: 3

RE: ActiveX
by trenchsol on Tue 17th Apr 2007 09:45 UTC in reply to "ActiveX"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

Activex was insecure, but it is used in Windows. It is a form of RPC. I think that some key system libraries are just wrappers around Activex components. It is a rather strange idea to let an OS communicate with itself via RPCs, which are supposed to be in higher layers. I believe that it is causing some problems to Wine developers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ActiveX
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 18th Apr 2007 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE: ActiveX"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

ActiveX is COM, which is built-on, but does not always use RPC. COM isn't always that easy to understand, but it's not rocket science and the fact that WINE developers are having trouble implementing it is interesting to me....

It is pretty smart to use a RPC-like system which forces separation of interfaces from implementations in a large OS like Windows. This is what all of the Windows scripting interfaces are based on too, since the RPC interfaces are callable generically.

Reply Score: 2

Windows + OS X
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 17th Apr 2007 00:36 UTC
PlatformAgnostic
Member since:
2006-01-02

This is targetted mainly at Windows and OS X in IE, Firefox, and Safari. MSFT would consider Linux if things fall into place just right and it happens to work in the development schedules, but chances of that are slim, so you can't expect it. I have a friend who built stuff with this when working as an Intern at Microsoft. It looks to me like they're going really solidly at the people who like Visual Studio and who will be building on WPF anyway. It's meant to be the way to get those kinds of people to take an all-Microsoft integrated solution, rather than getting "confused" (i.e. drawn away) by things like Flash and AJAX.

It will be heavily tested on Windows and on the Mac. The whole point of it is to allow people to make money on the web by selling stuff. You'll see a lot of SilverLight web stores and SilverLight video services. Frankly, the ROI of making a Linux version is not going to be that high. When Linux finally gets there on the Desktop, even Microsoft will want to make software for it. (Mac has the same market share, yes, but its users are in a demographic that spends a lot of money).

Until then, it'll probably be quite possible to make it work on OpenStep libraries. WPF/E is just a platform-independent rendering engine. If you can make a backend that fakes OS X drawing libraries with good enough performance, then you have what you need.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Windows + OS X
by Laurence on Tue 17th Apr 2007 09:22 UTC in reply to "Windows + OS X"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

This is targetted mainly at Windows and OS X in IE, Firefox, and Safari.


If Firefox's support is via an extention then that would make Silverlight OS independent (including Linux) providing that users are browsing with Firefox

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Windows + OS X
by trenchsol on Tue 17th Apr 2007 09:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows + OS X"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

You probably think of Mozilla JavaScript + XML scripting. I think that this kind of stuff requires some native code components.

Reply Score: 2

not that exciting yet
by chris_vickerson on Tue 17th Apr 2007 01:26 UTC
chris_vickerson
Member since:
2005-08-07

two things that struck me as being total let-downs:

1. despite its association to WPF it's missing a lot of things that would make it a more general purpose technology. For example there is no support for any native input elements. Not even a simple textbox.

2. the minimum system requirements for the mac were so ridiculous huge (I'm not exaggerating at all) compared to windows. I'm sure someone will find it and post it.

basically WPF/E or Silverlight has a ways to go before it'll get any attention from my team (ya-ya, I'm sure MS is crushed by that too :/).

Reply Score: 2

sorry
by nexex on Tue 17th Apr 2007 01:31 UTC
nexex
Member since:
2006-06-30

Not meant to knock their project, but every time i read the name of this, I think of silverfish.

Reply Score: 0

New Recipe from Grand Illusionist Cuisine
by nedvis on Tue 17th Apr 2007 01:58 UTC
nedvis
Member since:
2006-01-02

OK, has anyone noticed how grand illusionist from Redmond is ( intentionally) misusing terms like cross-platform and open format? Anyone? Nevermind!
==================================================
Since everything is about content delivery (the way big media wants you to swallow the pill ), thank God, Linux is unsupported platform.
Just take a sneak peek and have fun :
http://www.limelightnetworks.com/news/pr.2007.04.16.html
http://www.synccast.com/
http://www.telestream.net/
http://www.skinkers.com/fileadmin/user_upload/img/architecture.jpg
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/events/NAB200...

"Eyeblaster’s solution, based on Silverlight, will enrich the end user experience and increase advertisers’ options for rich, immersive campaigns. The richer advertising results from a more compelling media and interactive capabilities, such as support for the industry standard VC-1 video codec and flexible graphics insertion on the fly.
http://www.eyeblaster.com/press_release.asp?section=recent_news&art...

I don't even bother installing (properly) Adobe Flash Player in my Opera 9 for Linux browser. If I really have to watch Flash content I'll fire up Firefox for that session and that's all. No distracting Intel German shepperds ,idiotic iPod shadow dancers nor fleets of Microsoft SQL Server are allowed to get into my WEB experience.

Reply Score: 3

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

You missed another good quote: "…ensuring compatibility with the millions of hours of content already available on the Web."

Anyone smell OfficeOpenXML style propaganda?

(They fail to realise, if there are millions of hours of WMVs on the Internet, why would anyone transfer them into a less-supported container format ?!?)

Reply Score: 3

nedvis Member since:
2006-01-02

Good point!
"... why would anyone transfer them into a less-supported container format ?!?)"
Here is why:Microsoft wants to enforce DRM on all available "surfaces" (note MS-coined new term for what we usually call platform/Operating System )
MS OS-es are still around 90% marketshare.Add to that
new "surfaces" such Zune,XBox,mobile devices and what not and that's really impresive surface exposured to content delivery systems with great potencial in providing new stream of revenues for Microsoft.
The only problem for Microsoft would be to standardize media format ,make it prevalent form of content delivery and that's where the (DRM) string is going to be attached to an existing pool of archived WMV works.
If your "surface" ( read: operating system or appliance) does not support new standard you're practically barred from accessing DRM-ized content.
The real problem is not the media format itself but the
way Microsoft is trying to make it standard taking advantage of its monopol.

Reply Score: 2

*****NOT CROSS PLATFORM!!!******
by Milo_Hoffman on Tue 17th Apr 2007 02:51 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

FYI... its not "cross platform".

Microsoft is calling it 'cross platform' because it can be run from an APACHE SERVER....but that same linux box cant use it frm its own browser because its for **IE ONLY**.

Read the article:
"It supports Linux/Apache Server...."
Apache is a web server. It will serve any type of object you tell it to. However, this plugin cannot be used in any web browser running under linux.

"It supports playback of WMV files on both PC and Macintosh" (YEAH! For propeitary format lockin!! Wheeee...add some DRM for even more party potential).


The "Linux/Apache Server" line was a cheap and nasty attempt at a con job.

Microsoft has FOOLED OSnews into calling it cross platform.

Edited 2007-04-17 02:56

Reply Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Microsoft is calling it 'cross platform' because it can be run from an APACHE SERVER."

I'm pretty sure they say it since it runs on Mac's.

"Microsoft has FOOLED OSnews into calling it cross platform. "

I think you mean eweek, not osnews.

Reply Score: 4

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{However, this plugin cannot be used in any web browser running under linux.

"It supports playback of WMV files on both PC and Macintosh"}


Are you sure? I just watched a number of "Siverlight" presentations, including one on a Microsoft site, using Firefox running on Kubuntu Feisty.

The VC-1 video codec is supported by the ffmpeg/libavcodec library of codecs for Linux.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libavcodec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffmpeg

It all works for me.

Reply Score: 4

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

It also supports Firefox and safari, sounds fairly cross platform to me. If Linux dev's pay the 300 bucks for the spec, they can write a player for Linux, and then it's truly cross platform. 300 bucks is nothing.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{they can write a player for Linux}

They already have.

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"

It also supports Firefox and safari, sounds fairly cross platform to me. If Linux dev's pay the 300 bucks for the spec, they can write a player for Linux, and then it's truly cross platform. 300 bucks is nothing.
"

I think $300 is a massive amount given that most other web technologies' specs are free to view via the W3C (or other sources).

The impression I get is the only reason the specs are available to buy from Microsoft is so they can't be accused for breaking anti-trust laws (et al).

This to me is hardly any better.
MS still control the technology plus rather than going open source or investing time porting Silverlight on to other platforms, developers are paying MS for the 'privlage' to render Silverlight on their OS/webbrowser.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

300 dollars is nothing, feel free to disagree, but regardless why MS has released the specs, they have, and that is enough to ensure it will be usable on Linux. and the player will be Opensource. Better than a binary blob from Adobe.

Reply Score: 2

anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

...but regardless why MS has released the specs, they have, and that is enough to ensure it will be usable on Linux. and the player will be Opensource


This is rather optimistic. I haven't read the licence of the spec, however I am quite confident that it will not allow a Free software implementation fully compatible to Microsoft's own player.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I doubt that, as MS hasn't stopped Openoffice from using it's file formats, or Mono from cloning the .NET CLI. I think you may be overly pessimistic. It is in thier best interest to get as many people using this as possible, and that includes Linux users

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

If OSS devs really wanted to create a Linux version, they could easily gather $300. Are you really saying that one couldn't get 300 donations of $1 each instantly? It's ideology that prevents OSS devs from doing this, not cash.

And once some OSS dev does pay the $300, you can be sure that he'll "set the information free" and put the specs on the web for all to download anyway.

Reply Score: 2

MS wants to own the web
by Darkelve on Tue 17th Apr 2007 06:36 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

They want to own the web and the online distribution channels.

I hope it never takes off.

Edited 2007-04-17 06:37

Reply Score: 5

Cross platorm?
by Anon on Tue 17th Apr 2007 07:03 UTC
Anon
Member since:
2006-01-02

It'll be as open and cross-platform as the .doc format.

Reply Score: 3

Misconceptions
by TommyCarlier on Tue 17th Apr 2007 07:18 UTC
TommyCarlier
Member since:
2006-08-02

There are a lot of misconceptions here. The idea is that the browser plugin Microsoft has developed will run in IE, Firefox and Safari (and hopefully also Opera) on Windows and OSX, and from what I've read, MS will let a third party develop a Linux port.
Another thing: Silverlight is not something totally new, it's the new official name of WPF/E. And you can already download it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Misconceptions
by Darkelve on Tue 17th Apr 2007 07:45 UTC in reply to "Misconceptions"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

The idea might be good. But the way MS plans to implement it probably won't.

Excuse my skepticism, so many years of embrace/extend/extenguish can make you suspicious. Plus I still don't see what advantage this thing has over the currently existing technologies.

Reply Score: 5

Microsoft Can Be So THICK!!!
by christianhgross on Tue 17th Apr 2007 07:39 UTC
christianhgross
Member since:
2005-11-15

Ok so I look at this Silverlight. Its the Adobe killer, right? YEAH RIGHT....

Ok, so lets say I write in Flash what do I get? I get an application that can work on any platform and any browser. Now I use Silverlight, and what do I get? Works on Windows, probably OSX. What don't I get? Linux, and Opera support!

Microsoft just does not get it. To be an Adobe flash killer you actually have to have more features than the product you are killing. To say that product X supports a standard video format is not going to do it.

Put yourself in the context of the developer and manager today. I can on one hand build a cool app that works on all platforms. Or I can build a slightly cooler app that only works on specific platforms and the others are buggered. Oh yeah, that is going to work, NOT....

I have no idea what is the problem with Linux and Microsoft. I can understand that they dislike Linux, but my advice is GET OVER IT! Ubuntu is making headway and Microsoft better understand this!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Microsoft Can Be So THICK!!!
by AlexandreAM on Wed 18th Apr 2007 21:02 UTC in reply to "Microsoft Can Be So THICK!!!"
AlexandreAM Member since:
2006-02-06

Except if it happens as someone already posted. Microsoft can simply stop providing a pre-installed flash plugin for IE and then suddenly the decision of your developer and manager is like:

I can on one hand build a cool app that will work on all platforms, as long as the users download and install this plugin. On the other hand I can build a slightly cooler that works out of the box on this one platform that is used by 90% of the market.

I see sad times ahead of us all.

Reply Score: 1

Why...
by Morin on Tue 17th Apr 2007 08:17 UTC
Morin
Member since:
2005-12-31

... do people always wait for MS to be the first to make a new product, and then whine about being left behind?

If it had been, for example, a group of F/OSS enthusiats who made Silverlight as a competitor to Flash, then the standard would be open and it would run on every conceivable platform. If they also had the marketing skills to push it forward, then it would be a real alternative to flash.

But nobody did. Instead, everybody waited until MS decided to take the chance. And still, nobody wants to learn a lesson. Instead, there is only complaint against MS begin first.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why...
by Fransexy on Tue 17th Apr 2007 08:52 UTC in reply to "Why..."
Fransexy Member since:
2005-07-29

But nobody did. Instead, everybody waited until MS decided to take the chance. And still, nobody wants to learn a lesson. Instead, there is only complaint against MS begin first

Since when Microsoft did something first? Microsoft only copy, stole and screw ideas

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Why...
by Morin on Tue 17th Apr 2007 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Why..."
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> Since when Microsoft did something first?

Erm, isn't this a good example? They are the first (*if* they are, which has to be proven yet) to push an alternative to Flash hard enough to gain widespread acceptance. If you don't think they are first with that, name an example who was first.

Javascript is widespread, but its target is different from Flash.

Java has as its target a super-super-super-set of what Flash does, but it's not in widespread use (for Web applets).

So the question remains: Why wasn't some open solution first? MS being first has, as most would agree, a catastrophic effect on the open-ness and cross-platform-ness of that thing. There's still hope that the market rejects Silverlight, but if it doesn't, then the race for being compatible will put alternative OSes far behind again.

> Microsoft only copy, stole and screw ideas

Copy? Of course they copy. The computing world only evolves at the pace it does because of copying. What would you prefer, that copying ideas is forbidden (e.g. software patents)? No thanks.

Steal? MS didn't steal anything any more than downloading MP3s is theft. Not even so far, as they didn't infringe copyright.

Screw ideas? Your only valid point. Which is a good point why MS shouldn't have been the first to bring something like Silverlight to the table.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why...
by walterbyrd on Tue 17th Apr 2007 15:13 UTC in reply to "Why..."
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>.. do people always wait for MS to be the first to make a new product, and then whine about being left behind? <<

Who has been waiting for an alternative to flash? And how will this be a truely "new" product, and not just msft trying to step on a competitor with an inferior product?

This looks to me like msft trying to use it's money, and market position to play the vendor lock-in game.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why...
by Almafeta on Tue 17th Apr 2007 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Why..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Who has been waiting for an alternative to flash?

Me, for one. SWF and PDF are the last two significant formats for which there are no (real) alternatives. And Microsoft is going to compete with both.

With two software giants competing to make the standard format (Microsoft and Adobe), both with lots of money to spend developing and promoting their format, trying to make it more useful, less resource-intensive, easier to use broader supported, et cetera, the real winners in these format wars will be us.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why...
by Morin on Tue 17th Apr 2007 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Why..."
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> Who has been waiting for an alternative to flash?

Let's see how the market reacts. That will tell whether I have a point.

> And how will this be a truely "new" product, and not just msft trying
> to step on a competitor with an inferior product?

"new" as in "the first real alternative to flash". The "inferior" part has to be shown yet.

> This looks to me like msft trying to use it's money, and market position
> to play the vendor lock-in game.

Exactly. And instead of foreseeing this move and preventing it, people are now whining about MS playing unfair.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why...
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 17th Apr 2007 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"new" as in "the first real alternative to flash".

I'm not sure that "first to follow" is particularly worthy of praise.

Reply Score: 3

Why not?
by chaosvoyager on Tue 17th Apr 2007 17:27 UTC in reply to "Why..."
chaosvoyager Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do people always wait for MS to be the first to make a new product, and then whine about being left behind?

If it had been, for example, a group of F/OSS enthusiats who made Silverlight as a competitor to Flash, then the standard would be open and it would run on every conceivable platform. If they also had the marketing skills to push it forward, then it would be a real alternative to flash.

But nobody did. Instead, everybody waited until MS decided to take the chance. And still, nobody wants to learn a lesson. Instead, there is only complaint against MS begin first.


I couldn't agree more.

The Open Source world has no right to complain here. They've had SVG (which XAML has a LOT in common with) for over a decade and nothing happened with it. Only now do we have an (incomplete but consistent) open source implementation that works effectively, and even that's still in (Firefox 3) beta. In addition, the massive delay has created many sites that require a closed source (such as Adobe's) SVG plug-in to be present to view, even if it's not actually NEEDED.

At this point the only company that still has a real stake in the SVG client realm is Apple, and I would not be surprised if WebKit supports the complete SVG (1.1, 1.2 ?) standard by this time next year. I would hope the same for Firefox, but my faith in that browser has been misplaced before.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why not?
by lemur2 on Tue 17th Apr 2007 23:55 UTC in reply to "Why not?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{The Open Source world has no right to complain here. They've had SVG (which XAML has a LOT in common with) for over a decade and nothing happened with it. Only now do we have an (incomplete but consistent) open source implementation that works effectively, and even that's still in (Firefox 3) beta. In addition, the massive delay has created many sites that require a closed source (such as Adobe's) SVG plug-in to be present to view, even if it's not actually NEEDED.

At this point the only company that still has a real stake in the SVG client realm is Apple, and I would not be surprised if WebKit supports the complete SVG (1.1, 1.2 ?) standard by this time next year. I would hope the same for Firefox, but my faith in that browser has been misplaced before.}


Excuse me?

Open Source has had SVG solutions for quite some time.

The major implementations are cairo :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_%28graphics%29

and ksvg :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSVG

What exactly is your complaint?

Edited 2007-04-17 23:56

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why...
by lemur2 on Wed 18th Apr 2007 11:27 UTC in reply to "Why..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{Why do people always wait for MS to be the first to make a new product, and then whine about being left behind?

If it had been, for example, a group of F/OSS enthusiats who made Silverlight as a competitor to Flash, then the standard would be open and it would run on every conceivable platform. If they also had the marketing skills to push it forward, then it would be a real alternative to flash.

But nobody did.}


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KToon
http://ktoon.toonka.com/

http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2007/01/flash_player_9_for_linux...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash

http://www.inkscape.org/index.php
http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap#Milestone_14_-_Inks...

Edited 2007-04-18 11:38

Reply Score: 2

Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I’m still not entirely sure how the DRM in Silverlight is going to affect users experience.

Take on of the biggest current applications for Flash video streaming – Googles Youtube:
Google are not going to monitor the upload of every single video to check if it’s infringing on copywrites (if it did, it wouldn’t allow the upload in the 1st place) – so no DRM on those sites.

Take another major source of video streaming – news and TV stations:
They’re not going to DRM their streams because they’re offering the service for free (and those who are not force you to register to access as ‘members’ area already anyway).

Internet radio stations would follow the same as the TV stations.

Porn sites with video:
The video downloads are already DRMed. So no change there.

I genuinely can’t think of one instance where this DRM is going to play a major (or even any at all) impact to a users browsing experience.

Reply Score: 1

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Also, what if I, the content generator /want/ to upload my videos under Creative Commons Licencing? Are Microsoft just going to DRM my content without my permission; like the Zune - blindly DRM'ing things I have the permission to pass on, even the full and ultimate ownership of?

Reply Score: 2

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Also, what if I, the content generator /want/ to upload my videos under Creative Commons Licencing? Are Microsoft just going to DRM my content without my permission

DRM in VC-1 is described as being optional, depending on the artist's wishes. Don't want it, don't use it.

Reply Score: 3

the answer to the unasked question
by Dekkard on Tue 17th Apr 2007 11:44 UTC
Dekkard
Member since:
2006-01-07

what the world needs now is another audio/video codec? I just don't freeking get it at all. why??? Why why why? the only reason i can think of is Lockin and lock out. It is bad enough that you get those idiot messages from Plenty of sites.."sorry your browser/platform is unsupported". Crap!! just let the file play. Now I can look forward to requiring yet another plugin for my web content. Brother...

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{what the world needs now is another audio/video codec? I just don't freeking get it at all. why??? Why why why? the only reason i can think of is Lockin and lock out. It is bad enough that you get those idiot messages from Plenty of sites.."sorry your browser/platform is unsupported". Crap!! just let the file play. Now I can look forward to requiring yet another plugin for my web content. Brother...}

I think Linux does support this.

I went to this site and watched the inane video:
http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/default_01.aspx

My browser/OS: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20061201 Firefox/2.0.0.3 (Ubuntu-feisty)

The plugin I use is Mplayer plugin for Mozilla:
Windows Media Player Plugin

File name: mplayerplug-in-wmp.so
mplayerplug-in 3.31

Video Player Plug-in for QuickTime, RealPlayer and Windows Media Player streams using MPlayer
JavaScript Enabled and Using GTK2 Widgets


Codecs (specifically the VC-1 codec) are in ffmpeg:
http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/

Development was part of the Google Summer of Code 2006
http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=FFmpeg_Summer_Of_Code&pri...

I think there is a chance this format might actually be cross-platform, including Linux.

Edited 2007-04-17 12:29

Reply Score: 3

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

I went to this site and watched the inane video:
http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/default_01.aspx


Heh. I was entraced by the fact that the theme song is the same as in The Fanimatrix: Run Program.

Reply Score: 1

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Are they going to support amd64, PPC (cell), arm, mips, etc?

No thanks.

Reply Score: 1

Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Your comment makes me wonder:
whatever happened to the Dirac codec, an open video format to be developed by the BBC?

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{whatever happened to the Dirac codec, an open video format to be developed by the BBC?}

Not finished yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_%28codec%29

Reply Score: 3

Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Doh. Why didn't I think of using Wikipedia? :|

Well, I guess a video codec ain't easy to develop...

Reply Score: 2

Macromedia/Adobe was smart
by buff on Tue 17th Apr 2007 13:58 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

Back when Macromedia developed Flash, they made a smart move when they incorporated video in the Flash engine. This was a pretty smart move considering most users had the Flash plugin installed. It gave Flash the edge for streaming video. Being a linux user I like Flash video since I can view it without trying to find the latest Window's media codecs.

It is also predictable how Microsoft operates. It seems like Flash became almost too popular. I think Flash became a target for Microsoft when they realized it provided the ability to develop web applications and video. This was a threat since as people use more web applications and Flash video they need Microsoft's OS less. From a tactical point, developing your own Flash engine and including it as a transparent download via Windows update is smart. Microsoft will get back the video and rich web application market almost overnight and of course tie in marketing devices to their plugin to promote more MS stuff. Oy, the power of monopolies are definitely tricky to compete against. One of my fears about this development is that Silverlight will become popular and sites will switch their video to it. This could make it more difficult for Linux users since MS doesn't plan to release their plugin for Linux.

Edited 2007-04-17 14:09

Reply Score: 4

RE: Macromedia/Adobe was smart
by Headrush on Tue 17th Apr 2007 14:50 UTC in reply to "Macromedia/Adobe was smart"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

I think your right.

MS may even start with a support for OS X and Linux, but there are no guarantees how long this will last or if they will lag behind the Windows version eventually.
(Year later hear the Mac share is so small not worth the effort, normal MS PR.)

Doesn't matter whether it be MS, Apple, Adobe, Sun, anything destined to be a core technology on the web can't be proprietary. No company should have that kind of control. It needs to be a truly open standard.

Although Flash is better, remember for a long time it lagged terribly behind other OSes. There were attempts at open-source solutions, but they just never could match the proprietary Flash. Adobe still has Shockwave which doesn't have full OSes support also.

Reply Score: 2

non-starter
by TomB7 on Tue 17th Apr 2007 14:23 UTC
TomB7
Member since:
2006-01-03

This will see little adoption on the web. Web designers understand that they should be wary of the MSFT briar patch. Moreover, the DRM is a negative; the world is moving away from DRM (With regards to music now, but video will surely follow). Gates, as usual, is fighting last year's battle.

Reply Score: 2

RE: non-starter
by Headrush on Tue 17th Apr 2007 14:54 UTC in reply to "non-starter"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

My guess is MS doesn't really care about Flash that much, but this will feed video to its wmv format which is the real goal.

Its apparent streaming audio and video is the emerging market and this will help divert consumers away from Apple's Quicktime and that iTunes juggernaut.

Reply Score: 2

figures
by milles21 on Tue 17th Apr 2007 14:55 UTC
milles21
Member since:
2006-11-08

So it supports multi-platforms but can only be creted with MS tools that run on Windows(Expressions, and Visual Basic). The mention third party tools that can create it but no info.

Reply Score: 2

Flash and Windows stuff
by Southern.Pride on Tue 17th Apr 2007 15:31 UTC
Southern.Pride
Member since:
2006-09-14

How many weeks (months) was it before Flash 9 was available for a Linux distro?

You can take the Flash & Windows stuff and flush it down the toilet because it is not worth anything in my book. It bogs down a machine, slows it down and is just a pain to deal with.

What happened to a clean website without the end user being required to have 4 gig of memory and 1.5 TB of storage just to view a website not to mention quad processors.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Flash and Windows stuff
by Laurence on Tue 17th Apr 2007 15:44 UTC in reply to "Flash and Windows stuff"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"

How many weeks (months) was it before Flash 9 was available for a Linux distro?

You can take the Flash & Windows stuff and flush it down the toilet because it is not worth anything in my book. It bogs down a machine, slows it down and is just a pain to deal with.

What happened to a clean website without the end user being required to have 4 gig of memory and 1.5 TB of storage just to view a website not to mention quad processors.
"

Couldn't agree more. I have Flash plugins turned off by default. It's disappointing the number of sites that use Flash inappropriately / the number of Flash ad banners with annoying sound effects / etc

Edited 2007-04-17 15:44

Reply Score: 1

Cross platform - in a limited way
by driftwolf on Tue 17th Apr 2007 15:45 UTC
driftwolf
Member since:
2006-11-30

From their web page:
"Silverlight will support all major browsers on both Mac OS X and on Windows. Particular care is being taken to account for differences in platform and browser capabilities to ensure a consistent experience including experiences on FireFox, Safari, and Internet Explorer."

So three browsers, two operating systems. That qualifies as "cross platform", but only barely, and certainly not in a meaningful way in todays world. But since when has that stopped the Microsoft Dept of Lies and Mistruths (ie: Marketing)?

Reply Score: 2

Useless...
by systyrant on Tue 17th Apr 2007 16:49 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

as in I'm not going to use it.

Flash and, I assume, Silverlight are good for video sites like Youtube and for sites that promote bands and such. However, I hate flash ads and menus. Sure I've seen some really cools ads and some outstanding menu systems, but I just don't like them.

The other problem I have with flash based menus are when you try to print or have a browser that won't support them. Some developers do a good job of working around this with CSS and accessability support, but it seems more often than not developers just don't care.

My final thought is that Flash is OK and Silverlight is just competition, which is good, but I prefer sites that don't use them (except for video sites). However, I do remember once talk of how someday CSS would one day be able to replace flash. That would be awesome, but it probably won't every happen. At least not to the degree of actually replacing Flash.

Reply Score: 1

Uninformed Comments
by Synced on Tue 17th Apr 2007 18:06 UTC
Synced
Member since:
2006-06-16

It's amazing how people comment on how this technology is crap simply because its competing with Flash and video. Competition is good. This is what everyone says about Windows/OSX/Linux so its no different here.

Secondly, everyone seems to think this is a video technology. It includes video but its a subset of WPF which means its a 2D Vector/3D framework of which you can build application ontop.

It does not contain UI elements as of yet but I believe it is part of the roadmap.

I for one can't wait for this technology to mature because I hate Flash and its developer tools. The toolkit is fine but the tools are terrible. MS makes great developer tools. I have been a beta tester for Expresion Blend and once this supports WPF/E, creating content/apps will be good.

As a developer (not an artist) I find the tools available with WPF far superior to Flash. I'm just waiting for things to settle down and stabalize and mature.

Now if they would only have better streaming solutions to go along with this, it could compete with Flash Communication Server (which has rediculous licensing prices).

Later.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Uninformed Comments
by XemonerdX on Tue 17th Apr 2007 21:36 UTC in reply to "Uninformed Comments"
XemonerdX Member since:
2005-07-03

I for one can't wait for this technology to mature because I hate Flash and its developer tools. The toolkit is fine but the tools are terrible.

There are many ways & programs to create SWF's, you don't have to use Flash. Flash != SWF. Check osflash.org for instance.

Now if they would only have better streaming solutions to go along with this, it could compete with Flash Communication Server (which has rediculous licensing prices).

Red5 is an open source Flash server that's a free alternative to FCS (it's linked from osflash.org). Again, there are alternatives.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Uninformed Comments
by Synced on Tue 17th Apr 2007 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Uninformed Comments"
Synced Member since:
2006-06-16

Unfortunately its progress is slow last time I checked. You would have to re-author all your FCS applications because Red5 does not use compatible libraries. That and it uses Java on the backend instead of Action Script which means you have to re-code all of your server side code.

It's an option but it means an architecture change. Not compatible with FCS's components.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Uninformed Comments
by joshv on Tue 17th Apr 2007 21:44 UTC in reply to "Uninformed Comments"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

"I for one can't wait for this technology to mature because I hate Flash and its developer tools. The toolkit is fine but the tools are terrible. MS makes great developer tools. I have been a beta tester for Expresion Blend and once this supports WPF/E, creating content/apps will be good."

Have you not heard of Flex/Apollo? The developer tool is an Eclipse plugin - one of the better plugin implementations I've seen. I'll take that over some proprietary MS Dev environment any day.

Reply Score: 1

Developercentric Lockin
by tertiary_adjunct on Tue 17th Apr 2007 19:47 UTC
tertiary_adjunct
Member since:
2006-01-15

The problem with Silverlight isn't playback. That (for now) is cross-platform and cross-browser.

The issue is development. The development tools are all for Windows only, unlike Flash. This constitutes a developercentric lockin which will eventually translate to a usercentric lockin.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Developercentric Lockin
by Synced on Tue 17th Apr 2007 20:18 UTC in reply to "Developercentric Lockin"
Synced Member since:
2006-06-16

I think the bigger issue is user base compatibility not developer compatibility.

Last time I looked Flash 8 Professional didn't work on anything but windows? Last time I looked the Flash format was closed as well.

Theres no secrets about XAML and the CLR as far as I'm concerned. I don't think anything is stopping anyone else from writting another XAML editor. Along with SharpDevelop or MonoDevelop they could do the same relationship as WPF which is the following:

MS Blend (MS Build) + Visual Studio (MS Build) are both used for WPF projects.

"Something from the future" (MS Build) + SharpDevelop OR MonoDevelop (MS Build)?

Just a thought.

Reply Score: 2

Cross platform
by Edward on Thu 19th Apr 2007 15:20 UTC
Edward
Member since:
2005-09-17

Ya right, maybe they mean it will work on any system as long as it is a windows system.

Edited 2007-04-19 15:22

Reply Score: 1