Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Oct 2010 20:48 UTC
Microsoft Most websites glossed over this, but we didn't. Silverlight, once touted as Microsoft's answer to Adobe's Flash, has been retooled from its original purpose. Microsoft is betting big on HTML5 instead, turning Silverlight into the development platform for Windows Phone, and that's it. So... Silverlight is dead - long live Silerlight?
Thread beginning with comment 447891
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Silverlight is not meant to mesh with the web, hence why they made it a browser plugin instead of building it directly into IE.


Hardly. They made it a browser plugin rather than building it directly into IE because to do the latter would mean that it would take more than a decade before most people had bought a new Windows PC and so had Silverlight.

As a plugin, people can "plug it in" to their existing Windows installation. Thankfully, people were slow to do so, and Silverlight never gained the level of market penetration required in order to make it saleable to content providers. Too many machines and devices connected to the web have no Silverlight capability installed ... the majority of web-connected devices cannot work with Silverlight but they can work with Flash and now with HTML5/WebM.

That is the fundamental problem with a strategy where one hopes to make it a requirement to use a particular platform and technology in order to view rich web content ... too many devices are not that platform and technology, and content providers will shun your lock-in solution as a consequence.

http://gs.statcounter.com/press
"Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser falls below 50% of worldwide market for first time"

It is and always was a strategy doomed to fail ... as we have seen it fail.

Not a biggy ... bound to happen.

Edited 2010-10-31 22:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I suspect that the engineering levels of MS already saw this long ago ( can clearly be seen in the way SL developed in 3.0 and 4.0). Only that the executive levels have only made it public or caught up right now.

Either way I don't see anyone mourning, complaining or even surprised at the announcement both outside MS and inside.

well...possibly..small regret, I would say it would be nice to be able to develop web apps using a c like language for the whole stack. Any alternatives?

Edited 2010-10-31 23:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Hardly. They made it a browser plugin rather than building it directly into IE because to do the latter would mean that it would take more than a decade before most people had bought a new Windows PC and so had Silverlight.


No. Silverlight works on Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 on the Windows side of thing. Building it into IE would have meant it got pushed to those three OSes with the next IE iteration (and given that Silverlight was announced at MIX, it would have lined up perfectly with an IE release.)


As a plugin, people can "plug it in" to their existing Windows installation.


Or as an integral part of the web browser, people would get it when they upgraded IE. Seen IE8's adoption rate? Yeah, it wouldn't have been hard.


Thankfully, people were slow to do so, and Silverlight never gained the level of market penetration required in order to make it saleable to content providers.


Silverlight has incredible market penetration and an adoption rate that's very significant. Only bested really by WPF which is nearly ubiquitous on Windows PCs.

You forget that Silverlight is pushed down via Windows Update.


Too many machines and devices connected to the web have no Silverlight capability installed ... the majority of web-connected devices cannot work with Silverlight but they can work with Flash and now with HTML5/WebM.


The HTML5 stuff really varies. A lot of mobile browsers have compatibility with proprietary -webkit- HTML5 feature bits, but beyond that, it's really a mess.

It's really, ironically funny you don't see the insane lock in trap the web has walked into.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Silverlight has incredible market penetration and an adoption rate that's very significant. Only bested really by WPF which is nearly ubiquitous on Windows PCs.

You forget that Silverlight is pushed down via Windows Update.


You forget that "Windows PCs" is not a good enough share of web-connected devices. "Incredible" market penetration? Pfft.

As I siad;
Too many machines and devices connected to the web have no Silverlight capability installed ... the majority of web-connected devices cannot work with Silverlight but they can work with Flash and now with HTML5/WebM.


Back to your claims:
The HTML5 stuff really varies. A lot of mobile browsers have compatibility with proprietary -webkit- HTML5 feature bits, but beyond that, it's really a mess.


If they are proprietary, they are not part of webkit. Webit is based on KHTML, and KHTML was GPL ... so webkit is GPL.

For example, Google Chrome includes a proprieaary H.264 codec, but the open source webkit browser code it is based upon, which is Chromium, does not. Chromium can do HTML5/WebM or HTML5/Theora only.

Actually, Opera can also do HTML5/WebM or HTML5/Theora only, and Opera is not based on webkit.

Actually, Firefox can also do HTML5/WebM or HTML5/Theora only, and Opera is not based on webkit.

In point of fact: HTML5/WebM or HTML5/Theora for multimedia is really the only viable way to approach HTML5 at all.

It's really, ironically funny you don't see the insane lock in trap the web has walked into.


There is no problem at all if one simply avoids H.264 and any other proprietary bits like it. Such an approach is perfectly sane, and very widely supported in recent web browsers, and it is also perfectly in accord with patent policy for the web:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

Cheers.

Edited 2010-11-01 02:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2