Microsoft's Silverlight Strategy 'Has Shifted' 212
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like Microsoft might finally be realizing that Silverlight can't cover every platform, according to this conversation with Bob Muglia: '... when it comes to touting Silverlight as Microsoft’s vehicle for delivering a cross-platform runtime, "our strategy has shifted," Muglia told [ZDNet]. Silverlight will continue to be a cross-platform solution, working on a variety of operating system/browser platforms, going forward, he said. "But HTML is the only true cross platform solution for everything, including (Apple's) iOS platform," Muglia said.'"
Heh (Score:2)
"But HTML is the only true cross platform solution for everything, including (Apple's) iOS platform,"
I believe you meant HTML 5... right? =V
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You did, its called the object and anchor (a) tags. It just isn't exactly what a lot of people wanted.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Game of chicken (Score:3, Informative)
I think it'll be a game of who blinks first. If Google puts WebM as the primary codec on YouTube, many (most?) device manufacturers will feel compelled to support it.
I think it's also possible Google could get its Android partners posse (and maybe Nokia) to also use WebM. With both Nokia and and Samsung/Motorola/HTC/LG/Sony etc., that's the majority of phones out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash can be played on Macs. You just have to install the plugin if you want it now, rather than having a (potentially out of date, with security holes) one preinstalled. You know, just like the way it is done with Windows - if you want it, go and download it. Apple doesn't want to be responsible for shipping a plugin that you're going to have to update when you first use it anyway.
Not shipping it by default (to come into line with other OS vendors) is not the same as "can't be played [...] if Apple had the
Well, duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would think that HTML 5 being more cross platform is pretty obvious. Along the gradient of machine code -> interpreted/jit code -> scripting -> markup/declarative language, the more to the right you get, the more portable you inherently become.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, future of programming is HTML5?
Only in the parallel universe where web applications are an appreciable percentage of the total software in use.
Web apps are certainly more visible than other apps, but for much the same reason that TV shows are more visible than other forms of art: everyone (or nearly everyone) has a web browser and a TV. But just as all the television shows ever made represent fewer works than are in the average large chain bookstore this evening, web applications represent a negligible proportion of the software in use.
O
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not really.
There are still things in HTLM3 that not every platform does.
It all depends on who has access to reference environments, money, access to the internals, and motivation to make the changes to make it work.
Microsoft, being buried in cash and having access to just about anything it wants to play with, and the only access to Silverlight, could easily set a goal of making it better propagated than similar functions in HTML5.
I think what it really wanted was for, somehow, people to adopt Silverli
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, duh? (Score:5, Informative)
the more to the right you get, the more portable you inherently become.
No, you don't. That is only the case if the language(s) you're dealing with are transportable due to having a virtual machine/runtime compilation design - and those languages have a multitude of platform-specific interpreters.
Examples: perl, python, java, javascript, .NET.
Silverlight is a very 'high level' language - but it only has runtimes for Firefox and Safari on OSX, and (essentially) Windows. There are no mobile implementations (except for possibly Windows Mobile 6.x, couldn't find any info on it.) Flash is much more portable and cross-platform.
Even javascript isn't all that cross-platform/portable due to the use of different browsers/javascript implementations.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no mobile implementations (except for possibly Windows Mobile 6.x, couldn't find any info on it.)
There is an implementation for Symbian (S60) [silverlight.net], but, quite obviously, it's too little too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
iirc, mozilla is working on a JIT for javascript...
Re: (Score:2)
You mean to tell me that a machine that doesn't have the components to interpret your script, can't interpret your script?
And all this time I've been lead to believe...
Re: (Score:2)
From what I remember of JCL, you could probably have adapted it to any machine.
And I seem to remember a few emulators that ran on UNIX...
Re: (Score:2)
There are emulators, or were, until IBM sued their asses not long ago.
Translation (Score:5, Funny)
Translation: "Well, I'd say that Silverlight plan crash and burned. I guess we'll have to back to plan A, and try to kill HTML. What's that I heard from R&D about a <activex> tag?"
Re: (Score:2)
Naww, I think the translation is "Sure, you can use HTML5 for videos of your cat and basic apps, but if you're a commercial video publisher you'll love our built-in DRM, robust playback controls, dynamic quality change based on bandwidth/congestion, etc and other features. HTML5 isnt a threat because we're more focused on Hulu and Netflix, not your grandma's blog about baking." Adobe has the same attitude along with "oh btw, here's a script that provides fallback to Flash if your browser doesnt support 5 o
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Alternative translation: "Hey, Silverlight devs, you were great, really, but we've got an early meeting, so go call yourself a cab. We'll totally drop you a tweet or something though, kthnxbyenow."
And my reaction to anyone who invested in Silverlight could best be summed up as: Heh. Heheheh. Ah hah hah. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahah. Suckas.
no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Moonlight [mono-project.com] works ok.
Re:no (Score:4, Funny)
Re:no (Score:4, Funny)
In Linux, I need .NET like I need shotgun blast to the face!
sudo aptitude install dick-cheney
Re: (Score:2)
I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody -- not even MS -- thinks SMB was a good file-sharing protocol. It became popular only because it was the only option available for MS clients. And even MS ditched it more or less as soon as they figured out that network file systems would be the normal way of doing business rather than some transient storage used to replace sneakernet.
CIFS is a better choice, though still not ideal. It's acceptable for many user-oriented filesystem mounts, but it has several limitations (some of which can be avoided
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
good but they will always be playing catch up.
Anyway the move from MS is most unsurprising, playing nice and interoperable until enough traction is achieved, then use the marketshare to push a more ruthless domination agenda. And back.
IE is the perfect example.
Re: (Score:2)
I
Mono isn`t Silverlight (Score:2, Informative)
Moonlight [mono-project.com] works ok.
Mono is not at feature parity with Silverlight. I don`t even talk about non existing developer and designer environment for Linux/OS X/BSD.
Even MS admits that Silverlight may not be really cross platform as once envisioned and you Mono/Moonlight/Icaza fans still mention Moonlight.
For industry (if they took SL serious, silverlight is whatever offered at MS Windows Update, which is version 4 or something now.
I don't care about the DRM implications... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, my desire for this despite the DRM probably means I'm going to open-source fundamentalist hell...I mean, I even use the proprietary nVidia drivers...
Re:I don't care about the DRM implications... (Score:5, Funny)
Those that sell Essential Liberty for decent 3D effects deserve neither Liberty or 3D effects!
Re: (Score:2)
Can you run Compiz on the Nouveau drivers?
I heard you couldn't, and I'm getting hell trying to install the nVidia drivers on my 10.10 installation.
I'm currently running 10.04 just because of that...
Did you do something special to install/activate yours? I might give it a try here :-)
Re: (Score:2)
*gasp*
Unless you let the gospel of RMS into your heart, you will burn in the fires of Hades!
He who hath heard the Good News and let it fill his soul will have taken their first steps to redemption. Every time you say "GNU/Linux", you take another step upon that path (but, watch out... if you say Linux, without the "GNU", you will fall off the path, into the waiting hands of the Ballmer Devil!)
Re: (Score:2)
Would it kill performance to use VMWare? I'm going to GNUHell too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the only reason I ever boot into Windows is for Netflix's "Watch Instantly" feature.
Of course, my desire for this despite the DRM probably means I'm going to open-source fundamentalist hell..
If that Hell is a world where the middle-men have even greater control over distribution than they do now, where the first sale doctrine is an anachronism, where cultural history can be rewritten or censored as easily as deleting a file, then yeah, you are merrily skipping down that path.
Re:I don't care about the DRM implications... (Score:5, Informative)
You'd be wrong. Sort of.
Netlix never "banned" Linux. If you can get it to work with the site, great, they'd be happy for you. The problem comes in with the studios, who demand that Netflix use DRM when a user streams a video on their site. So they use Silverlight's built-in DRM API, which the studios are okay with. The only problem is that Moonlight does not implement Silverlight's DRM scheme. The details are proprietary, and although Novell has asked Microsoft for permission to use their DRM scheme in Moonlight, Microsoft has said "no." They don't want to share it, they definitely don't want it open-sourced (what's the point of an open-source DRM implementation?). This all makes sense from both parties' perspective; the only one really making a stupid mistake is Netflix, for using Silverlight in the first place. (Although I don't know whether their licensing terms played a part in that or not---in any case Flash nowadays has lots of DRM support, and would of course be a viable solution should Netflix decide to switch.)
HTML5 (Score:3, Insightful)
HTML5--another in a long line of standards forcefully popularized by Apple that Apple won't get credit for when everyone takes it for granted. See also: 3.5-inch floppies, USB hardware, the "File Edit View Window Help" menu layout, and more...
Re:HTML5 (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple popularized Firewire (which became IEEE 1394), not USB.
You must have missed the iMac (G3, I mean).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, USB is an Intel designed standard and came with the ATX board design and the BX430 chipset, also from Intel.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I didn't say Apple invented USB. I'm saying that it wasn't until the original iMac that hardware manufacturers fully embraced the standard in order to support the new Mac, which used USB ports. At the time, the standard with PCs was still a PS/2 mouse and keyboard, a parallel port for printers, and so on, so the iMac's design was very forward-thinking.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, USB is an Intel designed standard and came with the ATX board design and the BX430 chipset, also from Intel.
designing != popularizing
The iMac popularized USB because PCs at the time were still using a variety of connectors (PS/2, parallel, serial, etc.), and the situation was similar with previous Macs. Including USB as the only* external hardware connector on the first iMac is presumed to have spurred the industry to create appropriate peripherals faster. For that record, we can say the same thing about the floppy drive, which, as you may remember, the iMac also omitted.
*Yes, I'm lying: there was also FireWire,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus they never went down in price for like 15 years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The first iMac was controversial at the time because it eschewed all previous peripheral connector types for USB ports. At the time, USB was a new standard that wasn't as widely adopted as it is today.
Like I said--another popularization of technology taken for granted.
Re: (Score:2)
dude... Apple killed the 3.5" floppy before everyone else because it was time to do it.
you must be 12 or something because I recall seeing 3.5 inch floppies on the first Mac in 1984
Re:HTML5 (Score:4, Informative)
I'm talking about the 3.5-inch floppies that Apple was first to include in its Lisa and Macs. They were removed in the late 90s when nobody was using floppies anymore. If you're seriously arguing that 1.5MB floppies were still widely used by 2000, I don't know what to say.
Firewire was started in the mid-80s to replace parallel SCSI, nearly a decade before USB's existence. It is still the standard for data transfer between devices such as A/V equipment. Apple's been phasing it out over the years has always been a supporter of USB, adopting it in the original iMac to the exclusion of older keyboard and mouse connectors, forcing hardware manufacturers to support the new standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Firewire was started in the mid-80s to replace parallel SCSI, nearly a decade before USB's existence. It is still the standard for data transfer between devices such as A/V equipment.
Yep, most notably all DV cams and even HDV cams. But the modern cams based on AVCHD don't anymore, things get stored to a HDD/memory card so no need for firewire's perfect realtime capture. It's just transferred as any other file...
Re: (Score:2)
Firewire was started in the mid-80s to replace parallel SCSI, nearly a decade before USB's existence. It is still the standard for data transfer between devices such as A/V equipment.
firewire is great to quickly create a *very fast* network link between two computers side to side, if you have the cable of couse. In Linux just load firewire-net and you should see a firewire0 net device popping up.
Gigabit ethernet is getting more common in laptops though. However I still find a lot of laptops with firewire.
P.S. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Further, how is Firewire their preferred standard when every iPod and iPhone comes with a USB connector? Apple has always been the biggest supporter of USB. They even put extra USB ports on their keyboards and cinema displays, for crying out loud.
Re: (Score:2)
They only included the USB2 protocol and connector on the iPod when they made it Windows compatible. It was originally Firewire only, then had both for a while (it was always better with firewire on the Mac, and charged much faster too), then they dropped firewire and went USB only to make them cheaper to manufacture - only one controller to support, and you can cut out some hardware and make it smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is because we're talking about USB 1.1 in those days, when the 400 Mbps that Firewire provided exceeded both USB and Ethernet. Today, in a world of USB 2.0 and gigabit ethernet, Firewire has mostly outlived its uniqueness.
Re:HTML5 (Score:4, Interesting)
WRT FireWire vs. USB, I'm pretty certain (although I could stand corrected) that Apple's stance has always been that there are some things for which FW is better, and other things for which USB is better. I'm pretty sure that every Mac that has shipped with a FW port has also shipped with at least one USB port. Apple never, ever, ever tried to push anyone towards FW keyboards and mice, for example.
What's interesting is that with USB2.0--while it's still not as fast as FW400 due to its half-duplex connection--Apple has accepted that FW's benefits aren't really all that tangible outside of the professional realm. Running a music studio and need to do 32-track digital audio? Get a Mac Pro with FW800. Recording your neighborhood jam sessions with Garage Band? The USB interface on your MacBook is good enough.
I wouldn't be surprised if, once USB3.0 ships, Apple even moves away from FW800 on pro devices and just puts USB3 on everything. My understanding is that USB3 goes full duplex *and* increases to 800Mbps (though I could be wrong). If that is indeed the case, then unless there's something I'm not aware of, the benefits of FW400/800 are essentially nil.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume that my memory is a bit glitchy, but that's pretty close. Firewire was great for debugging computers, but you had to be sure t
Re: (Score:2)
This was a feature not a bug. Firewire was designed to replace SCSI. PCI and PCIe both have DMA. If someone can touch your computer the game is over, security wise.
Re:HTML5 (Score:4, Informative)
You're talking about two different things.
Firewire has DMA. So does eSATA. I don't see anyone whining about DMA there. In fact, they'd whine if eSATA didn't support DMA. And there are methods available on both busses to require devices to be authorized before DMA requests work.
Firewire is also a master-less system. USB can only connect one master to multiple slaves. This is why you can't connect your camera to your phone or visa versa -- both devices are setup as slaves and can only connect to a host. This also means you can't connect two computers together via USB, as they are both masters. Firewire works like SCSI or Ethernet, where all devices are peers -- any FW device can talk to any other FW device on the same bus. You can even interconnect electrical busses with relatively intelligent routing to give you multiple collision domains while maintaining connectivity among a large number of devices. This again is a feature -- if your computer, phone, and camera all had FW instead of USB you could connect them in arbitrary combinations and still have them work. You can also use FW for IP networking and other Ethernet-like functions (and in fact modern FW provides support for cat-5 connectors that automatically switch between FW and Ethernet).
Re:HTML5 (Score:4, Informative)
Though 3.5" floppy drives had been around since 1982, they did not meet with success until the 3.5" floppy drive was chosen for the original 1984 Macintosh (quickly followed by the Atari ST and Amiga the following year). Apple was not too far ahead of their time when they killed the floppy in 1998, but they saw where things were going and made the right call-- Mac users who still really needed a floppy drive were able to buy an external one. Windows users questioned it because they weren't (really, still aren't) accustomed to being able to boot from any device with an OS on it that's connected to their computer, so floppies were their lifeline.
Though USB had been on PC motherboards beginning in 1996, nobody did anything with it until Apple put it in the iMac in 1998 and excluded all other port types. Lots of people will argue that Microsoft finally adding USB support to Windows (in Win95 OSR2) was the tipping point, but that's bull. Windows users had the option of clinging to their peripherals that used the ancient parallel and serial ports, and cling they did. iMac users had no such option, and the popularity of the iMac meant that if hardware makers wanted iMac owners' money, they had to start churning out USB-based peripherals for them.
As an aside, Firewire did not appear in a Mac until the Blue & White G3, in January of 1999. It did not appear in an iMac until the 6th revision, in October of 1999. Apple's view was that USB and Firewire were complementary... USB for low-bandwidth stuff like keyboards and mice, and Firewire for hard drives, video cameras, and other high-bandwidth devices. Intel was the one that had the apparently inferiority complex and started working on USB2, to compete. Based on my experience using both, Firewire 800 is superior to USB2, and if I have the choice between those two I'll always pick Firewire. (As for the future, Firewire 1600 and 3200 have been approved by the IEEE but aren't in any shipping product, I haven't seen a USB3 device in the wild yet, and Light Peak is a wildcard at this point.)
To sum up, Apple is the tech company that is not afraid to chop off legacy stuff at the knees, and by doing so indeed often drags the rest of the industry kicking and screaming with it.
~Philly
Re:HTML5 (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a Mac zealot or anything (writing this from a self-assembled Linux box) but I think you're missing the point.
This is not about having USB, it's about having USB while not having serial and parallel. irDA is really small compared to the giants that are serial, parallel and USB - it matters about as much as PCMCIA.
I built my first "own" computer in 1999 and it had all the old ports. I used all kinds of parallel and serial devices and no USB at the time - had I had an iMac, I would have bought USB devices. I had a printer which ate parallel, and it's pretty obvious that I used the existing parallel port instead of buying a new one just because USB was there. Yet with an iMac I would have been forced to buy a brand new USB device.
See how this works? Hell, when I started out with that computer I used an ISA sound card I had left over from before which perceptibly slowed the entire system down with its ancient hardware communications. Good luck using such shit with the iMac even back then - it's not about having the new standard, it's about forcing it by not having what everyone used to have.
Thanks Apple! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet again, we all benefit from the fact that Steve Jobs is an asshole. His refusal to adopt WMA or license FairPlay killed DRM in the music industry, and now his refusal to allow Flash/Silverlight is pushing Internet standards forward.
What's next? Video? Can we get a real TVoIP system to kill cable? DRM-free movie/TV purchases?
Re: (Score:2)
It is called Roku.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
His refusal to adopt WMA or license FairPlay killed DRM in the music industry
I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the fact that WMA and FairPlay sucked, nor a little out-of-bottle genie called Napster.
Re:Thanks Apple! (Score:4, Insightful)
His refusal to adopt WMA or license FairPlay killed DRM in the music industry
I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the fact that WMA and FairPlay sucked, nor a little out-of-bottle genie called Napster.
It definitely had nothing to do with FairPlay sucking. FairPlay does suck a little bit, but all other implementations of DRM suck a lot more. What Apple did was 1) create the #1 best selling portable digital music player of all time, and 2) refuse to allow music purchased from any online store but theirs to play on it. This had the effect of motivating everyone else who wanted to compete with the iTunes Store to convince the record labels to allow THEM (not Apple) to sell DRM-free music, since there was no other way for them to meet customers' demands of something that's compatible with an iPod. Once this happened, it wasn't too much of a stretch for the record labels to allow Apple to sell DRM-free music too (although Apple did have to compromise in the negotiations, and allow the record companies to set different prices for some songs).
Your out-of-bottle genie is part of the reason the record labels insisted on DRM in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple was a supporter of DRM-free music and music sharing/fair use long before the iTunes store or iPod revolution - remember "Rip, Mix, Burn"? From the very start they never wanted DRM, but if they wanted content to sell, they had to include it.
So, they made it as weak as possible - they included the ability *in iTunes itself* to strip off the DRM from your tracks, and encouraged you to do so every time you downloaded music. It wasn't ideal (since it required making an Audio CD, so had a transcoding loss i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what about the cases where "things for Apple's benefit" coincides with "things that benefit consumers"? They are not two mutually exclusive categories.
I'm sorry, what - other than a dogmatic refusal to run "non-open" software on your Linux system - prevents you from viewing H.264 video in something like VLC, or a browser like Chrome or
Oh brother. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, because MS Silverlight is *so* easy to view in Linux in comparison to HTML5.
Ideology is spread pretty thick around these parts.
Re: (Score:2)
I know QuickTime doesn't have the best history (though neither does any other commercial A/V system), but it's now *the* standard for MP4 A/V wrappers and supports the same sorts of features that the built-in video systems on all other platforms do including a wide variety of easy-to-install open-source codecs an an extensible codec/wrapper framework. While it would be nice if there was one universal A/V system such a thing does not exist, and on supported platforms QuickTime is not such a terrible choice.
Re: (Score:2)
It was only after Amazon took away about 10% of the MP3 market that Apple removed DRM and that was only done in order to remain competitive.
Your premise is somewhat based on the assumption that Apple has the only say in the matter. It assumes that the music companies would gleefully allow Apple to sell music with no DRM. It was always the music companies that insisted on DRM.
In fact almost a full year before Amazon offered DRM free music in January 2008, Steve Jobs publicly stated [apple.com] in February 2007 that Apple would sell DRM free music if allowed. And EMI allowed Apple to sell DRM-free tracks since May 29, 2007.
Unfortunately for the other mus
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> In January 2008, Steve Jobs publicly stated in February 2007 that Apple would sell DRM free music if allowed.
You actually believed that?!?
Consider: If Apple wanted to sell DRM-free music, it would mean that that they wanted people to be able to play music they bought from the iTunes store on any MP3-capable device they owned. If that's the case, why has Apple spent years updating iTunes, sending cease and desist letters and filing lawsuits to prevent people from being able to do so?
http://en.wikipedi [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple said in February 2007 that they would offer DRM free music if allowed. EMI allowed them in May 2007. Actions speak louder than words I guess. Amazon didn't offer it until January 2008. So technically Apple was the first to offer DRM-free music. That dispels your theory that Amazon was the leader.
Amazon was the music companies' attempt to wrest their dependence on Apple. The music companies created the dependence problem in the first place by insisting on DRM. They didn't think that Apple was a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's the case, why has Apple spent years updating iTunes, sending cease and desist letters and filing lawsuits to prevent people from being able to do so?
They were contractually obligated by record labels to make their best effort to maintain their DRM system. If they hadn't tried to keep it intact, record labels would pull their content from the store.
You're creating some revisionist history here. Jobs had been outspoken about the problems of DRM for years, and it's known that Apple created their DRM scheme, above Jobs's objections, because record labels insisted. Record labels also had Apple remove the ability to copy music off of your iPod, which was
Re: (Score:2)
Laughable. Jobs has been a corporate asshole for a long, long time. Just because he got his jollies phone phreaking in his college days doesn't mean shit.
Blast from the Past (Score:3, Insightful)
Good riddance, too.
Silverlight, we barely knew ye.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thou were intended to be the ActiveX of our age, to witness the glorious rise of the ye Microsoft of old, alas, tis not to be.. alas..
(fucking rot in hell)
Realizing something else (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps realizing that even longtime Windows user like myself refuse to click the "must install Silverlight" link on the few websites that have it.
The only place I have this problem is on a few streaming radio sites. In almost all cases, they have another link for the "basic player" which gives me what I wanted: audio from their station without having to install more crap.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
To the exception of Netflix, I can think of no site I've been to which uses silverlight.
I've got a friend who, despite his worthwhile attributes, really likes Microsoft software (always has). He's mentioned that "does not work with silverlight" is a big game killer for him: apparently there are a number of sites and appliances which require silverlight plugins to use, which are important to his clients and their management. IMO, that's a huge fail.
Unfortunately, like IE6 is now, it looks like Silverlight wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's 'for all intents and purposes'.
HTML wins (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice. For those of you complaining about how HTML doesn't or can't do everything that Flash/Silverlight/Java can do, realize that most of that stuff is not really necessary for basic information display purposes.
Now I'm waiting to see how Silverlight+WP7 and AdobeAir+Playbook will pan out. If the responsiveness and capabilities can't parallel native, these interpreted OS layers will be at a significant disadvantage. However, Palm did deliver something quite great with WebOS which was based on HTML/CSS/JS, so maybe this is the next step and most natural fit for technologies like Silverlight and Air...
Re:HTML wins (Score:4, Insightful)
Silverlight does not go away - it will simply take the place of ActiveX as the platform of choice for "kinda Web but not really" apps in MS-centric shops. A few places like that I know are all either already using Silverlight in that role, or are seriously considering it. On the other hand, I know of few sites on the Net which serve Silverlight content to end users.
If you look at the feature set changes in recent versions (especially Silverlight 4), it seems that this is also the direction in which it is being pushed. It now has a fairly complete widget library, and not one but two (WCF Data Services client library, and WCF RIA Services) data manipulation frameworks which integrate seamlessly with ORM on the backend, support integrated Windows authentication, etc. Immensely useful for business apps, but not so much so for typical consumer stuff.
HTML not completely cross platform... (Score:2, Funny)
Netflix (Score:3, Interesting)
They use Silverlight. They use it on the Mac. I am assuming that Microsoft is basically shouting at them to drop it and switch to Flash.
Which really doesn't mean anything for Windows or Mac users, but does mean that Linux users may be able to use Netflix streaming sometime soon.
Hey Microsoft, here is a cloud seed for you... (Score:5, Insightful)
The 5 primary Desktop computers in my home run Linux. I purchase services (annual subscriptions in Microsoft speak) from the NFL/MLB/HBO and several others. They all work with Linux. They all work with my Windows Netbook, Wii, MacBook, and Linux Laptop. The producers know the product they produce is viewable with Linux and several other OS's. They get my subscription fees while Microsoft doesn't. Check it out, I'm not tied to any platform.
Cross platform does not mean Windows XP/Vista/CE/7 only. Cloud services does not mean Windows XP with IE 99 or Windows 7 with IE 8.5. Cross platform and cloud services mean Droid, Windows, Linux, Mac, Blackberry, iPhone, HP, Wii, PS3 or any other platform that is standards compliant.
Come out with a .Net runtime with Silverlight that runs native on Multiple non-Microsoft platforms. And no, Mono sucks and is full of traps.
My rant.
Enjoy
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thing is, I believe that some quarters (particularly those who deal with desktop software) within Microsoft honestly think that "cross platform" means "works with more than one version of Windows". Were you to walk into one of their meetings and suggest supporting a non-Windows based platform, you'd get everything from funny looks to comments along the lines of "But nobody's used DOS for years!". As far as they're concerned, you might just as well propose video streaming to a paper pad, it'd be equally ab
Not Cross-Platform ? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, it works on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7, so it's cross-platform.
Once again, Slashdot promotes an article bashing Microsoft.
This is so unfair !
Re: (Score:2)
what, no Windows ME or Windows CE support? now that's not very cross-platform at all, is it?
Silverlight is only one of the faces... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you can kill Flash but you can't replace it.
Shifted?... what is shifted? (Score:2)
here we go again (Score:3, Informative)
I'm talking to you, developers that spend time, energy and money on learning and using microsoft technologies.
Even if it fills the plate today, for your own shake, invest some time on alternatives to ms-only. Otherwise you can see that knowledge go to waste.
Learn from history.
Re: (Score:2)