A day earlier than expected, Microsoft has released version 3 of its Flash alternative Silverlight, including a number of related tools to aid in Silverlight development. It comes with a whole lot of new features.
Microsoft’s main Silverlight web page has not yet been updated, but the release is really there, and you can get it here. Silverlight 3 runs on Windows and Mac OS X 10.4.8 or higher, both PowerPC and Intel machines. Officially, the plug-in supports Internet Explorer 6/7/8, Firefox 2/3, and Safari 3/4, but I noticed that my Chrome 3.x installation on Windows 7 works with Silverlight content just fine as well.
There are lots of new features, and Ars Technica summed up the most important ones very nicely:
- Media: GPU hardware acceleration, new codec support (H.264, AAC, MPEG-4), raw bitstream Audio/Video API, and improved logging for media analytics
- Graphics: GPU Acceleration and hardware compositing, perspective 3D, bitmap and pixel API, pixel shader effects, and Deep Zoom improvements
- Application development: Deep linking, navigation and SEO, improved text quality, multi-touch support, 60+ controls available, and library caching support
- Data: Data-binding improvements, validation error templates, server data push improvements, binary XML networking support, and multi-tier REST data support
Microsoft also released the Silverlight 3 SDK and the Silverlight 3 Tools to get you started on Silverlight development. Whether you want to participate in bringing an alternative to Flash closer to ubiquity is a whole different matter. 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.
Because according to them, the web should look like this:
<html>
<object …>
Install Silverlight.
</object>
</html>
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>
getting so boring … yawn.
I knew I would get modded down for that
My Moonlight plugin doesn’t even work with Silverlight 2 yet. Can anyone say “Antitrust probe”?
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.
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).
As it turns out, Microsoft do have the ability to install anything they want on your Windows machine (if it is connected to the internet) without your permission, even if you disable Automatic Updates.
I can explain the mechanism to you if you like.
No thanks, I’m honestly not worried about it.
The nice thing about a company like MS is that they are so big they have a lot to lose so there is a chance they won’t do anything TOO stupid. Honestly, I’m less worried about MS’s update mechanisms and more concerned about how every single program I install has its own auto update mechanism…Apple and Adobe are some of the worst in my opinion. I love Google Chrome, but even the fact that it has its own auto-update thing running constantly annoys me. I think I have more background auto-update processes running than actual programs. 
That’s a small exaggeration.
This is not your worry. Your true worry is that you are forced to depend on things over which you have no ownership at all, no control, no effective veto (even though you think you may have) and no knowledge of them and their inner workings other than the certainty that they are NOT written in YOUR interests.
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, it isn’t a Web development platform.
except it is because it is a browser plug in and targets websites.
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
Microsoft’s self-interest is, of course, to try to make it so that one has to have Silverlight in order to be able to view rich multimedia web content. This would give Microsoft control over which devices could, and which could not, view rich multimedia content via the internet.
Nothing could be further from the spirit and as-designed intent of the internet itself.
Fortunately, I have heard that there is a project underway right now which has the aim to make an ActiveX plugin for IE that would support (at least) HTML5 and Ogg Theora/Vorbis codecs.
Despite Microsoft’s recalcitrance, it might not be possible for Microsoft et al to stop an open internet with respect to rich multimedia content.
Just say NO to Flash and Silverlight.
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.
I’m hoping that the internet “audience” may in fact end up vetoing the veto (as it were) of the self-interested companies that have tried to stop HTML5/Theora.
No company, or group of companies, can be allowed to control which devices and platforms can render rich web content.
I’m betting that user demand will see the companies recalcitrance off eventually. It will be either: provide the open web, or don’t be a player.
Edited 2009-07-10 05:03 UTC
Honestly, I hope so…if there were true standards that companies actually followed then it would make my job easier and make web development more fun. I enjoy my job for the most part…I just get sick of all the tweaks that go into making a site work on all of the major browsers. Although, IE8 has made this quite a bit easier…unfortunately we generally have to support IE6/7 as well.
And I would like to point out, that I have found this discussion really interesting and I hope you haven’t felt personally attacked or anything. Its just something that I feel somewhat more personally involved in because this is the sort of stuff that I spend most of my days dealing with.
Likewise, I hope I haven’t made you feel attacked.
I do, however, feel attacked by large corporate interests who are apparently trying to dictate how I should be “allowed” to access web content, and I will (very loudly) defend myself, and champion web standards which are independent of big companies corporate interest in ripping me (and most consumers with me) off.
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? I haven’t seen Silverlight video in action, but IMHO Flash is ok. At least it’s a helluva lot better than the days of yore when you needed 9 million different players installed to view video on the web.
Edited 2009-07-10 00:31 UTC
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.
I’m a professional web developer by trade so I have some idea of what I’m talking about and I personally get very frustrated with the “standards” of the web because they are anything but standard. And yes, I hate IE because their renderers seem to be the worst but even open source renderers render things differently. Having to test page layouts in multiple browsers because they might render things slightly differently sucks.
I’ve done some Silverlight (mostly HTML/CSS/JavaScript though) and one thing that is wonderful about it is that it renders the same in every browser. All I really have to worry about is whether the Silverlight plugin shows up or not. It works the same on all browsers that Silverlight works with.
Now, I’ve seen a lot of stuff on here lately about HTML 5 and the video tag, like Kroc mentioned in the first comment in this thread…and personally, I don’t forsee myself ever using it because nobody can agree on a video codec. If I use Silverlight or Flash then I can guarantee that my video will work, I don’t have to encode every video in 3 different formats hoping that the users browser will support one.
Similarly to the above mentioned issues is the problem with scripting. With libraries like jQuery (which I think is awesome) this is usually mitigated but still an issue in that different browsers work in different ways. And again, that’s one thing that Silverlight and Flash don’t have problems with (or at least Silverlight doesn’t, I’m not a Flash guy). There is one standard API that is guaranteed. No quirks in different browsers.
I also really love that Silverlight uses .NET because that means that I can program in my preferred language depending on what I’m doing…I could use a strongly typed compiled language like C# or use a dynamic typeless language like Python, or any of the other options available (which are quite a few now).
You know, now that I think about it…maybe instead of complaining about Silverlight and Flash and saying that HTML with new tags is the answer maybe someone should develop an open source alternative that would have all the benefits that Silverlight and Flash provide but would also be open source and not controlled too tightly by any single organization. Although, if no single entity controlled it then it would probably stagnate and never grow…look at how long it takes things to happen with HTML, OpenGL, and lots of those big open “standards”. The official standard changes so slowly that it becomes fractured.
Edited 2009-07-10 00:44 UTC
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.
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).
Right so Silverlight doesn’t work on my Linux machine runing Firefox but you don’t care is that it? Because it’s harder to get video decoder for h264… right…
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.
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
Microsoft just don’t get it and never will get it. If they want to win over developers they need to create a Silverlight creator on both Windows and Mac – Adobe provide a complete work flow from Photoshop to Flash, and the majority of the work I see take places on Macs. If you want to win over the users you have to win over those who create the content and you win them over by creating development tools for their platform.
Don’t get my wrong, I would sooner see HTML5 video support come through on top but at the same time we only have to look at the sorry state of Flash – its pathetic on MacOS X, appalling on *NIX and only slightly tolerable on Windows. I might be willing to cheer-lead for Adobe if they dropped their hatred of open source and opened up FULLY their Flash specifications without requiring an NDA to be signed AND to fully fund an open source implementation of the plug-in and developer tools so that development and deployment aren’t rigidly bound to the Windows and Mac OS X duo-poly.
I welcome Silverlight 3 given that the alternative to it (Flash) is so utterly crap – Moonlight is always going to be one step behind Silverlight and when it does catch up to Silverlight 3.0 it will be interesting how Novell will pay for the h264, MPEG4 etc CODEC support that has been added.
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.
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.
The specs for flash are open, but the codecs often employed with Flash (on sites such as YouTube) are not open.
Thankfully, open codecs have now caught up performance-wise.
Other web standards that can work in conjunction with open multimedia codecs, such as CSS, ECMAScript, SVG, PNG, animated PNG, SMIL and HTML5 are now adopted by all but one of the major browsers.
We don’t need Flash to be any more open than it already is, as a far better set of technologies than Flash is now implemented in most browsers. This is clearly the way to go. Having Firefox able to render Theora video is significantly better in every way than having a binary blob Flash plug-in render H264 video withn a Flash wrapper.
Silverlight is an utter non-starter in every way imaginable.
Edited 2009-07-10 11:39 UTC
Then adopting proprietary solutions hardly seems to be a solution.
Flash sucks about as much as it ever did.
Exactly so.
The way to go is not Flash at all (and even more so, not Silverlight).
There is one beginning demonstrations of the way to go here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo
Don’t try this in incapable browsers such as IE.
Right now, AFAIK, only Firefox 3.5 and Opera 10 are capable of this. Google Chrome might also gain these capabilities very soon.
Nevertheless, even though this page is only a demo, it is clearly better any plug-in-type solutions.
* Rotate player
* Extract preview
* Extract preview rapid fire
* Skinning
* Ambient light
* Hide controls
* Blur video
* Edge effect on video
* Colorize video
That is the way to go.
Edited 2009-07-10 12:10 UTC
Frankly, I don’t care about the codecs, as long as the player logic is simple and fast (i.e. video tag). Flash just seems to suck, technically. On linux, you can install whatever warez codec/media player you want from non-free, and it’s up to the website to pay the licensing fees if they insist on it.
For similar reasons, we don’t need silverlight. It’s yet more “logic” where logic isn’t needed (you don’t download a plugin to view images, therefore you don’t need it for video either).
I kind of agree, except for the bit about the codecs.
We are talking here about a standard. Like all standards, it is meant to be inter-operable, so that all devices from all makers can handle the “standard material”.
It is a bit like a spec for petrol … it is of no use at all if the standard petrol can only power Ford cars. It is even worse if we have Ford setting the petrol standard and every other car maker had to pay homage to whatever Ford stipulated. It is even worse beyond that if all the other car makers had to pay Ford a royalty …
Codecs form a very important part of the multimedia standards … without them being an agreed and unencumbered standard, there is no interoperability.
Edited 2009-07-10 12:45 UTC
I’m just not sure we can have that easily. I think it’s up to the website to determine whether they want their content to be universally viewable (without warez codecs), or not.
Theora is a good start, but I just don’t think the whole issue is that important. Just like application developers are not legally bound to ensure their applications work everywhere, the websites don’t have that either. If an app fails, it fails, if a website fails, it fails. The only one screwing up is the author of the app/website.
What’s important is that it’s *possible* to make content easily available. video tag + theora (+ js) does it. Silverlight certainly doesn’t. Flash does it too, but badly (and everyone hates flash apps, just like everyone used to hate js 😉
If your company buys an app that runs on silverlight, it’s your company purchasing dept. screwing up. File a complaint about that if you wish, and don’t use the app. Free competition should sort it out.
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
I guess that’s a matter of taste 😉 I would never say that a mess of different technologies (some half-baked), mixed to tons of hacks and never meant to work together (and because of that, independently developed) could be better than coherent and modernly developed frameworks, and that’s valid for Flash too even if it has been a mess too, sometimes. When I can choose, I never decide to use HTML+JS+CSS+SVG+PNG + all respective hacks. Come on… we all do that because of necessity: we’re not so pervert to actually like that! 😛
Definitely a matter of taste. And btw, what’s so exciting about that link? Had those things since perhaps 1998… didn’t you?
Edited 2009-07-10 13:17 UTC
You have never had those things (image browser, including video and basic image editing) out of the box on Windows at all. You still don’t, to this day, since AFAIK, you have to get such a thing for Windows from a third party anyway.
KDE 4.3 functionality is going to blow Windows 7 away. Even KDE 4.2 people thought was better than Vista.
Windows 7 is going to be seriously blown away as far as looks goes, too:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=2&id=99442&file…
KDE4 is getting better at integrating GTK+ and KDE4/Qt applications into a unified theme:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=103741&fil…
GTK+ applications with KDE dialog boxes!
So there will be no trouble having say PolicyKit, PackageKit, Kontact, GIMP, OpenOffice 3.1, Firefox 3.5 along side Dolphin (or Krusader), Gwenview, Digikam, Amarok, VLC (or SMplayer), Kwrite (or Kate) and Okular on the same desktop. Out of the box. Windows 7 out of the box will come nowhere near it for functionality.
Meanwhile, you will be stuck on Windows 7 with the standard background, can you believe it?
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25827/1231/
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/03/29/microsoft-drops-personaliza…
How stupid is that?
Edited 2009-07-10 13:45 UTC
Only Starter has that, and Starter will not be sold on western markets. Doesn’t make it any less of a stupid limitation, obviously.
Don’t go FUDing about now, Lemur2.
On top of that, Linux distributions have been offering more functionality out of the box since god knows when. Didn’t seem to have helped them until now, why would tomorrow be any different?
Because now, with Firefox 3.5, that additional superiority extends, very publicly, to what is available and do-able on the internet itself.
People won’t be able to avoid noticing the fact that if they want better performance and functionality as they view the web, they have to ditch weak Microsoft products such as IE.
And people really, really hate products where the story is “you already have that but it is disabled, just pay us more money to enable it”. Nothing tells people that they are being ripped off better than things like that.
PS: AFAIK, Starter will be it for netbooks. Even in Western countries.
A lot of people’s first look at computers (as young students) will be on a netbook, and if the Windows 7 one sucks and the Linux ones are fantastic and way, way faster, and able to do more … you join the dots.
Edited 2009-07-10 14:10 UTC
True you have to get third-party software: I didn’t think difference was so subtle. Yet, via 3-party software, I can basically do that since 1998 or so. I can’t see the difference, actually.
*Extended Remark*: are you aware that MS could have bundled these functionalities into Explorer ANY time? If they didn’t do that it was mostly not to damage 3-party software and partners, the same way it never developed a proper A/V software and so on. Plus, Microsoft has to deal with anti-trust concerns when it packs features inside its software, something other people don’t need to care about. While I might concede that Explorer cannot directly do what you meant (because of mentioned reasons), I hope you’re aware that’s not some kind of technological deficiency or open-source superiority: that’s just pragmatic. Still, I was able to do that anyway so it’s nothing so fancy to me.
Matter of taste, for sure 😉
Are you kidding me? Are you trying to make me believe I should be happy because you solved the mess you created? I never had any problems like “unified themes”, PolicyKit, PackageKit or something “on the same desktop”. That’s all mess you had to deal with. Glad that you solved it, though 😉
Oh, is this another post in the series of “20xx will be Linux desktop year”?? Notice I put two “xx” so Linux has lots of time 😉
Seriously, I’m glad if Linux solved its problems. But I never had such problems so I have nothing to be happy for. Just I’m not sure you could really tell me I’ve been limited for a long time and now I have all options because of KDE 4.2-3-4. I still have to see something I didn’t already do years ago.
Take care.
I am aware of all this … but are you aware that none of it makes any difference to the consumer?
The consumer will see … this is what I get with Windows 7, I am being asked to pay extra for that and that and that other thing as well … yet I get all these things and more with Kubuntu Linux for free. And I can get even more stuff for free, and it is faster, and it doesn’t get viruses, and there is no crappy adware applets or 30-day trials.
At least … the consumer would see all that if any retailers were brave enough to show them …
Windows Vista comes with Windows Photo Gallery (image browser), Windows Movie Maker and Paint (yay!). I’m not pretending that they are better than the KDE counterparts, though.
However, to be fair, Microsoft can’t implement a complete out-of-the-box experience even if they would like to because of anti-monopoly laws.
Eh, looks is a personal preference. Some people like clean environments, others enjoy the complex themes from E16/E17. Personally, I believe this shot look horrible, just like most KDE themes I’ve used or seen. Yet, I am sure that people are turned off by the looks of Leopard (OS X), even if I believe that’s exactly how any DE should look.
Quite stupid. Don’t make hasty generalizations though, as it’s only for the Starter edition.
—
As for Silverlight… eh, I couldn’t care less about it. Is there anyone using it besides Microsoft?
Edited 2009-07-10 16:18 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
It’s great to see a new update to Silverlight! As a professional developer that has to work on Silverlight applications day in day out I can assure you that Silverlight is a breeze to develop for and to work with when you need to build web based business applications with a rich & complex interface. Although it still has its flaws, I wouldn’t want to switch back to HTML & javascript based applications!
Anyone who tried to develop for Silverlight (or latest Flash, for that matter) knows that those are great technologies and personally I would love to get rid of HTML+Javascript mess.
So I welcome Silverlight3 a lot. My only concern is I would want more from Microsoft, where “more” means a way to integrate Silverlight with ASP.NET server-side code. Yes, we have WebServices, REST and blablabla but I would have expected to be able to call server-side code from Silverlight managed code in a way which wouldn’t require me to develop a separate WebService or page :-\
That’s my biggest complaint towards Silverlight, which I like a lot.
does silverlight 3.0 support multi-channel audio playback?
flash only support stereo, html 5 video tag in firefox can play multi-channel, but no audio processing possible.
i wonder if silverlight is the solution…
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.
As users be FORCED to download install and harbour these “applications” just so we can watch a video listen to music or do other things in the cloud. I have heard the arguments of some of these developers but if the end user experience is important to them then why subject the consumer to unnecessary hardship? Dont developers want their sites content to be able to be played ANYWHERE like linux the bsd’s android,iphone,symbian phones set-top boxes and other odd devices that may NOT run flash or silverlight?
Edited 2009-07-10 22:40 UTC