OSNews

at least all of what i've seen from silverlight was human-readable
thats a bit of a difference to flash

just open the file in your favourite texteditor:
http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/xaml/FmaShowcase.xaml

In fairness, Flash doesn't inherently mean human-unreadable content. Most SWFs that dynamically load content do so by loading the data from an XML file. And if the XML file is being generated dynamically from a database, there's nothing preventing you from displaying the same content in a more human-readable format.

LOL!!! Too true.

Microsoft would still not be happy with that and would prefer that there was no annoying HTML used at all...


HTTP/1.x 200 OK
Content-Type: application/x-silverlight-app
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET

<BINARY GARBAGE GOES HERE>

I knew I would get modded down for that

How exactly would that be reason for an anti-trust probe?

If Silverlight gains traction they can be seen as leveraging their monopoly position (again) to exclude competitors.

I'm really sick of Microsoft bashing...all companies do the same things that MS was doing, just most of them aren't big enough to warrent any attention. What about Apple tying the iPod to iTunes and proprietary music formats? That seems pretty anti-competitive. Maybe they should be fined and forced to inter-operate with other music stores or devices. Oh wait, that would actually probably be bad for consumers because it would probably make things more difficult for them.

Same with Windows...its too bad for Netscape that MS included Internet Explorer with Windows but if it was worth having then people would have gotten it anyway. Look at Firefox...its done fine even though its not bundled with Windows. They key should be to make a better product, not get the government to punish successful companies...like Opera is doing now. Opera can't compete because their product is sub-par but instead of making a better product they just go to the legal system.

And to say that MS should be probed for anti-trust because they entered a field which another company already has a virtual monopoly on? That's just ridiculous. Besides, they aren't even pushing Silverlight because of those very reasons...if they wanted I bet they could have Silverlight on 75% of Windows machines in a week if they pushed it through Automatic Updates but they haven't because they know if they did everyone would cry about it. I say let them do it and may the best product win!

You LIKE being manipulated and ripped off by big corporate interests?

Strange person.

Tell me, do you believe that you own your own machines?

BTW, the category of "web client machines" is a lot bigger than "desktop machines" and therefore bigger again than "Windows machines". The latter category, "Windows machines", would represent only a part of the world's "web client machines".

Edited 2009-07-10 03:32 UTC

How am I being manipulated or ripped off by big corporations? Or at least by MS in this case? (I hate the fact that Comcast has no real competition in my area.)

And yes, I do own my machines. MS may try to claim that they own they copy of Windows on my machine and that I am merely licensing it from them (which is true) but I have the choice to not run Windows if I don't want to. I am knowledgeable and aware of the alternatives, but at this time I choose to run Windows because I find it to be the best product at the time. I have honestly considered switching to PC-BSD because I'm a big FreeBSD fan but I decided against it simply because I like Windows.

Although many people will disagree with this, but in my experience Windows just works. I don't have to mess with configuration files and compile sound card drivers or any junk like that to just run my machine. I run a FreeBSD server with Apache, PostgreSQL, and various other services and its awesome...haven't had a problem with it. It just runs. I'm familiar with Unix-like systems and I enjoy learning more about them and technology in general, but I've made the conscious choice to stay with Windows because I don't want to have to screw with it just to be able to browse the web or listen to music or play a game. For me, for now, it just works.

As for the whole "web client machines" vs "Windows machines" thing, you are correct. Probably the biggest category of "web client machines" would be cellphones...but how many of those support HTML 5? And yes, "Windows machines" is a subset of "desktop machines" but just barely. At least 90% of "desktop machines" are "Windows machines", and most of the rest are "OSX machines"...which can run Silverlight. And yes, I do know that PowerPC macs can't run Silverlight but I'm not terribly surprised...even Apple isn't supporting PowerPC any more.

No you don't. Didn't you just admit that Microsoft has control over what is installed on your machine? If Microsoft control it, how can you claim ownership of it with a straight face?



Microsoft's control of market channels for desktop computers is such that you don't have a choice not to buy Windows (unless you do as I do and assemble together your own machines from component parts).

If you don't have any effective choice, you are not a true owner of the property.

No you don't. Didn't you just admit that Microsoft has control over what is installed on your machine? If Microsoft control it, how can you claim ownership of it with a straight face?

MS may try to claim that they own they copy of Windows on my machine and that I am merely licensing it from them (which is true) but I have the choice to not run Windows if I don't want to.

Microsoft's control of market channels for desktop computers is such that you don't have a choice not to buy Windows (unless you do as I do and assemble together your own machines from component parts).

If you don't have any effective choice, you are not a true owner of the property. "

I do own my machine, and I do have control over what is installed on it. By putting Windows on my machine I do give them some ability to have an influence over it but I ultimately have the choice to remove it. Microsoft has no direct control over my machine, they have no authority to come to my house and make me put Windows back on if I choose to remove it. In fact, if I disable Automatic Updates (which I do) they don't (or at least shouldn't) have the ability to install anything without my permission. Now, I do understand that they may have the ability to install something covertly but I choose to take that risk because I know there are alternatives if they do something I truly dislike.

And I totally disagree with you that Microsoft controls the market so much that you can't get a machine without Windows. I could go to Dell right now and buy a machine without Windows. Or I could go the route you do and build my own machines, which I have done the last couple of machines I've bought. The thing is that Windows is something that people know so they don't ask for anything different, and in my opinion the only alternative that is usable by the general public is OSX and Apple's machines are too much money. I honestly think that Apple could gain huge market share if they had cheaper machines (I might buy one).

but ms does offer silverlight for osx on ppc. wimre they skipped version 2, but they seem to offer a download for this new version (or at least the article says so - i'll test it later).

ups, sorry - no, they don't. only silverlight v1 for all ppc-macs.
well, i think i will get along without v3 just fine.

Yeah, the thing is there is a different standard for Monopolies to prevent them from growing more powerful. There are somethings that are OK for smaller firms to do, that Microsoft should not be allowed to do.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you're saying except this piece:

What proprietary music format? the only thing proprietary is the DRM technology they use but the format of their iTunes Plus DRM free music uses AAC (which does NOT stand for Apple Advanced CODEC as some windows advocates here like to lie about):

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

Well, isn't the fact that its protected by proprietary DRM so no other players can play it make it essentially a proprietary format?

I personally am just plain anti-DRM to begin with...music, movies, games. DRM sucks. People will find a way around it anyway so then the only thing DRM does is make itself a pain in the butt for people who aren't going to doing anything with it anyway.

I used to work for a computer game development company and the publisher forced us to put some stupid CD protection schemes in the game. Of course it was cracked before the game was even released so there was no real usefulness in it...but they made us put it in anyway.

How about the fact that you're a liar makes anything you say invalid.

You can purchase DRM free AAC tracks from iTunes, there is nothing stopping you from doing it. AAC is not a proprietary format - the original author claimed that AAC was - he was NOT talking about DRM but the format of the music track in general. There is nothing stopping ANY of the other vendors from selling AAC tracks either - but most choose not too because MP3 is more common due to the lower licensing requirements for it (or so I am told).

If you want to see rip off - look at the chumps who pay subscription fee's for their music collection. If one is going to sign up for that - you might as well empty your whole bank account and forward it to the company or better still, set it alight given how you're signed up to throwing your money into a black hole.



Then don't purchase it! hell, its a difficult thing to find decent quality music these days so the loss of a couple of CD's is hardly something I'm particular unhappy about. Right now the music I listen to is on cd and DRM free or its downloads of record -> MP3 transfers of out of print artists.

Edited 2009-07-10 05:54 UTC

So... He is a Liar...



Because you can buy some different product from apple that behaves differently?

WTF????? How is this even an argument?

Apple has proprietary DRM and a proprietary interface to the iPod (That's a fact) so he is not a liar.

Just have to invoke Godwin right now.

There were many antisemitic/ultranationalist groups in Germany back in ~ 1900. You probably just hate all the Hitler bashing since any of those smaller groups would have done the same holocaust thing, given equivalent power.

And yeah, Apple sucks too; I think the industry is gradually starting to wake up to that fact.

Regarding Silverlight - just ignore it and it will go away.

Ignore Silverlight and allow Flash to keep its grip on power, talk about a crappy future. I'd sooner see Silverlight.

Yeah, and Apple sucks of course - run along little one to your tree house so you can play spin the bottle with your friends; maybe Suzzy Smith might kiss you this time! oh goodie!

Edited 2009-07-10 06:07 UTC

Flash "grip" will be over as soon as <video> tag goes mainstream. The only flash thing people care about is youtube.

The future of web programming is Javascript (like it or not). Users want stuff that "just works", no matter how much web developers would want to develop differently. Web site developed with flash/silverlight is just much less valuable to user than html/javascript ones, even if the development with html/javascript may cost a bit more in developer time.

To repeat, silverlight can be safely ignored. It's just not very compelling a technology anymore; html/js is just not as stagnant as we thought it would be (see the "canvas" widget, for example, used in https://bespin.mozilla.com/ ).

uh-huh.... the video tag will save us all... oh... no it won't... silverlight is a web development platform and its programming model is about 10^1024 times better than Javascript+html.

Except its not being bundled with the computers, its being used as an optional update. Also, I hardly see anti-trust being entered into the equation when Flash dominates it in terms of web usage.

Let me reinforce the fact that its an OPTIONAL update. On XP most users wont even KNOW to download it since you have to manually go to Windows update, do a custom search and then add it. Vista/Win7 makes it easier since its listed under the built in client but again, you have to click View All Updates and its listed as...OPTIONAL. So, how is that abusing their position? Considering flash comes bundled on most computers now adays by the OEM and is virtually required for all web usage. Silverlight atleast as the possibility of being open and Microsoft is working with (though slowly) the linux base to port it

Edited 2009-07-10 02:20 UTC

You don't need proprietary junk like Silverlight or Flash that is constrained to run only on platforms which the proprietary owners decide to port it to.

Everyone is immeasurably better off if no one vendor gets to decide which devices can and which cannot support rich multimedia content. This is so fundamental it can be considered as a guiding principle for the entire internet.

To that end, W3C standards HTML5 + SMIL (+ open codecs) + SVG + ECMAScript + animated PNG are far, far preferable to either Silverlight OR Flash.

http://blog.dailymotion.com/2009/05/27/watch-videowithout-flash/

http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo

The W3C open standards are just as capable performance-wise too.

http://pinstack.blogspot.com/2009/06/hey-youtube-we-want-open-video...
http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/youtube/



Edited 2009-07-10 02:31 UTC

Except there is no standardized codec now for video watching with HTML5...so its going to be another cluster. How many different implementations and bastardizations will there be? (again, NO standard) Hell, when is HTML5 actually going to be finished? Its been worked on since what...originally 2004 and 2007? So in 2015 it might be finished?

It is exactly as "finished" as proprietary interests have allowed it to be.

It isn't through lack of trying, or any fault with HTML5, that proprietary interests have held it up from being approved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html5


In other words, there is nothing wrong with HTML5 other than that some big proprieatry vendors feel they won't be able to rip people off enough. In other words, the only thing missing from HTML5 being complete is the specification of the codec.

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

Not to worry though, HTML5 + Ogg Theora and Vorbis codecs will work today in Firefox, and it will soon also work in:



... Opera and Chrome as well as Firefox.

Almost 50% of the desktop web browser market will support it, even though it isn't an official endorsed standard.

PS: I have heard that there is an open source project under way right now to create an ActiveX plugin for IE that would add support for HTML5 and Ogg format codecs.

Opera and Firefox represent a huge slice of the non-desktop-platform web browser market as well.

Edited 2009-07-10 03:06 UTC

Funny, know who's name wasnt listed in what you quoted? Microsoft. Have we heard anything from them about it? No, don't think we have. No reason Microsoft wont be supporting it with their "increased" push towards support web standards (and as still sub-par as IE8 is compared to its competitors in some areas, it IS an improvement) I dont see any reason why it WONT support ogg

This is my point exactly...whenever you are trying to get people to agree (especially companies) and you don't have one entity with the power to make an absolute decision then things start to stagnate. Everyone just has their own best interests at heart.

Javascripts SUCKS!!!!! sorry, but is is a horrid tool that is being shoehorned into places it does not belong.

And yeah... silverlight is soooooo proprietary that they allow the open source crowd to reimpliment it in all ways.

You want to install our 2.0 version:

http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight-preview

And what are you going to use for the codec? According to folks like Google, the Ogg video codec isn't quite ready for prime time (eg: Youtube), and H.264 apparently has license restrictions. So, what else is htere? "

The person from Google who made the claim that "Theora would take up all bandwidth" was well and truly rebutted.

Xiph.org was able to demonstrate that current Theora software can in fact out-perform much of what is on YouTube right now.
http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html



Rather than the question being "what else is there?", the real question is actually "why are people lying about the performance of open codecs?".

Here is the actual state of play:


The statement "When it comes to video content, please promote the HTML5 video tag, possibly using a fallback technique like Video For Everybody which does not require JavaScript" should actually be strongly endorsed by everyone who is on the side of internet users.

Edited 2009-07-10 01:56 UTC

I'm more than willing to use OGG regardless of people saying it's not "ready for prime-time".

I think the more people that use it, the more attention it will get for better quality. I'm sure the folks responsible for the codec are working extremely hard to improve it as I type this.

Seriously, Ogg-Theora has already caught up. Please don't help to spread the false FUD that it is behind, or that it is somehow not already "ready for prime-time".

To satisfy yourself that it is indeed ready for prime time, if you are able, then have a look at these side-by-side comparison videos:

http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/youtube/

http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html

If anything, the Ogg Theora videos are slightly better for the same file sizes and bit rates.

If you can't see the Ogg stuff, it is high time you downloaded Firefox 3.5 or Opera 10.

Theora has by far the best chance here.

"Fallback" mechanisms allow for programs (other than the browser) to play videos that the browser itself cannot.

Theora would easily be the format most able to be supported on any and all platforms.

Even when it comes to recalcitrant desktop platforms like Windows and Mac, the user can just install a player such as VLC and the video can be made to play.

I do wish that Google would truly endorse Theora because I do wish there were better standards. In a perfect world there would be no need for Silverlight/Flash and open standards compliant technology would be ubiquitous. I'm just so tired of the bashing of proprietary technologies where those technologies exist because of a lack of standardization or because the standards are stagnating.

In my opinion the exact same thing happened with OpenGL and DirectX, although I don't see anyone complaining about DirectX. OpenGL was/is a great technology but since it was design by committee it wasn't growing at the pace it needed to so Microsoft came up with its own technology that it could grow at whatever pace it wanted.

When ever you have committees trying to reach agreements and compromises with various companies things are always going to move at a snails pace, if they ever get done. Exactly like what is happening with the HTML 5 video codecs.

I'm not sure I agree with this. There is already millions upon millions of copies of Firefox out there, compliant with standards, and able to play HTML5 video on any platform without resorting to plugins.

User demand to support that audience may well be enough to start to tip the balance in favour of the users, for once.

Also, part of my frustration is that the sites my company develops are primarily for marketing campaigns and that sort of thing, so my perspective is a little different than others perhaps. For our clients its about having everything nice looking so being able to have fallbacks doesn't necessarily work. We don't have the freedom to just say "If the user can't play the video it will just popup in their media player or they can download VLC." It just has to work, and look nice doing it.

Also, part of my frustration is that the sites my company develops are primarily for marketing campaigns and that sort of thing, so my perspective is a little different than others perhaps. For our clients its about having everything nice looking so being able to have fallbacks doesn't necessarily work. We don't have the freedom to just say "If the user can't play the video it will just popup in their media player or they can download VLC." It just has to work, and look nice doing it. "

Fair enough ... although if you do implement a fallback correctly, then an external player such as VLC or Mplayer or even WMP (with appropriate extra codecs) can be made to play the video within the browser window AS IF it were browser itself playing it.

BTW ... most of the video on toaday's web is Flash ... for which people have to download an extra program. Silverlight is also an extra download. Why no objection for them, but there is an apparent objection for users having to download VLC? (or for that matter an HTML5/Theora/Vorbis ActiveX-based plugin).

Do I detect a double standard here?

I think from the face of it that you might be just making these spurious objections up ...

Edited 2009-07-10 04:55 UTC

In the case of silverlight, it is a 15 second download and does not require the browser to be restarted (in the case of IE at least) and stays on the page that the content is on.

Take a look at all the different operating systems avaiable and have a look which one of them support at least one web browser (even if only textbrowsers). Afterwards compare this number with operating systems for which a 100% compatible (aka offical) version of Flash/Silverlight exists. I think you get the point (If you don't get it look at the first post in this thread :-)).

Although I agree that it is annoying that some browsers have/had different interpretations of e.g. rendering box models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_box_model_bug) etc. in my oppinion you (and probably most other companies and webdesigners) don't get what (X)HTML is meant for.
As a (eXtensible) Hypertext Markup Language it is not meant to implement things on a per pixel base and since ages (X)HTML per itself is not meant for anything rendering specific (take CSS for this issue).

I think you missed my point entirely, the point is that with something like Silverlight/Flash there is a stable environment. No questions about if they support feature X or Y, or whether a certain set of components will render 5 pixels to the left in one browser or 5 to the right in another...I know the same thing works the same in every browser. Not just video. Not just rendering. Everything.

And here's the thing, if your browser doesn't support h264 then you're going to have some sort of plugin to get it to work anyway and thus the usefulness of the video tag becomes nothing because you have to use a browser plugin to get it anyway.

I think you missed my point entirely, the point is that with something like Silverlight/Flash there is a stable environment. No questions about if they support feature X or Y, or whether a certain set of components will render 5 pixels to the left in one browser or 5 to the right in another...I know the same thing works the same in every browser. Not just video. Not just rendering. "

Here is the thing ... there are tests for compliance with the standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3

Pass those tests, and your browser will render the same as other browsers that pass the tests.

Fortunately, most of the major browsers (bar one) pass most of these tests.



Firefox, Opera and Chrome will all support HTML5, Theora + Vorbis, and over 90% of the standards tested by acid3.

Even IE might be able to be brought into line, screaming and kicking, via the use of an ActiveX plugin. AFAIK there is already one such that supports the canvas tag, and there is work underway to support html5 as well.

Edited 2009-07-10 04:03 UTC

I agree completely...although at least MS provides their free tools on Windows so people can develop Silverlight for free on that platform at least. And their Visual Studio based products are really excellent. The Expression tools...need a bit more love.

I really honestly wish that Moonlight was moving along quicker. I understand the problems and why it takes so long but having the power of Silverlight in an open source package and tools that are available to everyone would be awesome...whether provided by Moonlight or a completely different technology base.

All I know is that, strictly speaking from the development side of things, web development is a pain in the butt and doing things in Silverlight can be a breath of fresh air sometimes simply because of the stability of the platform its built on.

Even if they do move along, the development tools on Linux either suck or are non-existent; use Monos own attempt to create a development IDE and it is a joke; truly it is. Novell still don't get it - developers within large corporations want drag, drop, double click on widget and assign some code to it. That is how it should work - just like visual studio.

Instead we have Novell stuck in this retro 1980's where there is no integration between the presentation and programming side of the equation; they fail to grasp that the tools they provide a hugely inefficient and will provide no stepping stone for transitioning customers until their tools equal or better that of Visual Studio.

The difference between HTML5 + open standards and things like Flash and Silverlight is that the latter two are closed and controlled by one company, whereas HTML5 + open standards can be developed by anyone.

We have unlimited and undeniable proof that anything popular that can be developed by anyone will be developed (and video on the web is certainly popular). In the case of things that can be developed over the internet, they will be developed by many thousands, if not millions, of people.

In that scenario, there will be no "sorry state".

When has the proprietary state of a given technology ever stopped the brain washed developers of the world from embracing it; from ActiveX to the pointless extensions to Javascript and HTML that both Microsoft and Netscape did - is there any wonder why proprietary technologies seem to get thrust to the forefront instead of embracing an open standards alternative that does everything one needs in regards to RIA.

One has to be realistic, as long as their are brain dead developers out there, there will be some form of Flash or Silverlight sitting around attempting to displace open standard technologies - and they'll gain traction because the C*O's are swayed by any marketing then demand that their IT staff fall in line, their IT staff fall into line because many of them never look at the larger picture - they only thing occupying their mind is quick and dirty rather than the long term implications of a given decision on future directions in regards to IT infrastructure in a company.

When has the proprietary state of a given technology ever stopped the brain washed developers of the world from embracing it; from ActiveX to the pointless extensions to Javascript and HTML that both Microsoft and Netscape did - is there any wonder why proprietary technologies seem to get thrust to the forefront instead of embracing an open standards alternative that does everything one needs in regards to RIA. One has to be realistic, as long as their are brain dead developers out there, there will be some form of Flash or Silverlight sitting around attempting to displace open standard technologies - and they'll gain traction because the C*O's are swayed by any marketing then demand that their IT staff fall in line, their IT staff fall into line because many of them never look at the larger picture - they only thing occupying their mind is quick and dirty rather than the long term implications of a given decision on future directions in regards to IT infrastructure in a company. "

This is all true enough. None of it need impede the progress of HTML5 however.

The only thing that will stop things like Silverlight and Flash is a lack of interest in them from mass-market consumers.

Fortunately, in the case of Silverlight, we have that already.

Now we just need to wean YouTube off Flash, and we may be on our merry way to an equitable web.

Edited 2009-07-10 06:41 UTC

Talking is cheap. The reason why Flash became so popular is exactly the reason why you were able to have a VIDEO tag in 2009 while Flash solved this problem like 7 years ago. If you don't understand this "little" difference, you just become a priest of nothing.

Reason why proprietary technologies become popular is linked to their ability to solve a problem in the very same moment it will arise. If you like open standards, tell them to be able to provide solutions for problems when they occurr, not 10 years after they do and then complain.

And btw, if you think you could wean YouTube Flash support because now you have VIDEO tag, maybe you didn't actually check what Flash (or Silverlight) really is. You have to go way far than VIDEO tag to wane Flash/Silverlight.

Agreed. The solution is to fix the standards process, which admittedly sucks.



Let's see silverlight gain popularity in the first place. Flash is, in practice, a video tag in drag (oh yeah, it also supports making stupid games, ads, and intros - but those are not particularly interesting).

And don't forget Java applets (remember those from the 90's?), which is what the Silverlight basically is. That technology failed spectacularly, and Silverlight is going down the same path (albeit with much deeper pockets to keep it alive).

Or resolve to adopt the best proprietary technology which is available at the moment and ask its propietor to standardize it. I don't think they would refuse and evolution process could start over from there, in a open way.


Right parallel. However, Java applets where far too advanced for what computers and browsers could do at that moment. They were slow and they lacked a server-side counterpart. When those failed, Sun didn't really invest in them anymore until computers were ready. And at that time it was too late.

It's true that Flahs is mostly used for videos but there's much it could do. And Silverlight has a few advantages over Flash too.

The key point here is how fast Internet connections can be. If connections gets faster and faster (and widespread by using wireless technologies), smarter frameworks like Flash and Silverlight will gain popularity. If connections will improve but not so quickly, HTML+JavaScript will be the preferred way.

Flash has already become the de-facto standard for video.
Go ask Adobe to standardize and open it and see how far you get.

I don't think so.

The new HTML5 video tag + open codecs + javascript/CSS3 + some svg filters too + animated PNG = far better technology than Flash or Silverlight.

I mean people generally have no idea just how much open source software is starting now to take the lead. Just for one example, KDE 4.3 is now almost upon us, and here is a preview of the humble image viewer for that desktop:

http://tuxarena.blogspot.com/2009/07/review-gwenview-23-powerful-kd...

This type of stuff, and lots more besides (including way, way more functional web browsers) comes out-of-the box with a current Linux desktop. It blows out-of-the-box Windows 7 away.

Edited 2009-07-10 12:34 UTC

The codec pack is separate. There is no need for a Moonlight developer to need to use anything other than Theora since it is moonlight that decodes it, thus a moonlight user does not need to care that it is a theora video. Silverlight 3 will automatically support this because its plugin will pick up that codec from the server.

It is interesting how well Silverlight works, even more interesting is the outdated information silverlight bashers have.

Edited 2009-07-10 14:43 UTC

Multi-channel audio is currently downmixed to stereo by Silverlight's WMA codecs, and not supported for AAC. It may be possible to add a multi-channel codec via Silverlight 3's raw audio/video API.