Microsoft: Silverlight still has a future in an HTML 5 world


Recommended Posts

At Microsoft?s Mix ?10 conference in March, where Microsoft took the wraps off its HTML 5 vision for Internet Explorer 9, there were a lot of questions about the future for Silverlight.

Six months later ? and one new version of Silverlight (version 4, released in April) later, those questions still persist. Should Web developers target Internet Explorer 9 or Silverlight when creating new Web and mobile applications?

Microsoft hasn?t issued any kind of white paper or definitive guidance. The official IE executive positioning has been HTML 5 is the future of the Web ? but Silverlight?s not dead (yet). This week, however, the Silverlight team finally stepped up to the plate to defend the future of that platform.

Brad Becker, Director of Product Management, Developer Platforms, took the bull by the horns with a post entitled ?The Future of Silverlight? on the Silverlight Team Blog. Becker repeated the party line that HTML 5 is nowhere near done and is a standard in flux. But he also made the case that Silverlight is the right solution for developers looking to create premium media content, as well as content/apps that can run on multiple platforms.

There is still confusion/overlap around business/enterprise apps and consumer apps. Should a Microsoft-centric developer target IE or Silverlight in those cases? Becker?s answer seems to be that it?s up to programmers and they should go with the platform to which they?re most comfortable coding.

I?m hoping Microsoft is prepping some kind of more definitive guidance for developers as to when to target Silverlight vs. when to target IE/HTML 5. (Given how often I?m asked by developers what Microsoft?s stance is here, I bet a white paper or cheat sheet would be welcome.) Maybe once the Softies are ready to talk about Silverlight 5 Microsoft will have figured out its own positioning and politics?

Source : ZDNet

I often have discussions about this at work, as we are looking for interactive content for our company's web app, but are unsure whether to jump on the HTML5 or SilverLight bandwagons. There seems to be no definitive response from either, but Microsoft arguing that "it's not finished yet" as their best defence proves that it's going to prompt a decline in the need to use Flash/Silverlight for interactive content.

One thing I'm not sure of however, is which performs faster. Some multmedia content written entirely in Javascript, is that faster than SilverLight or vice versa?

If you can't do the interactive stuff you want with current standards (not HTML5), then go with Flash. HTML5 is not an option because the standard is not finished yet, and the browser's have not fully implemented it either. In fact, IE7 and IE8 do not support it at all. By going with HTML5, you would be alienating an extremely large percentage of the market. Silverlight is not quite as bad a choice, but it's still a poor choice because it's not as widely deployed as Flash.

Of course, it definitely has. People seem to have the wrong impression that HTML5 will do everything (Silverlight and Flash do). Silverlight is ****ing amazingly rich and MS can have their own proprietary innovations put there as not everything can be done the HTML5 way.

There's also the nice fact that you can be pretty confident that what ever you write for Silverlight will work exactly the same in every browser - not something you can say about HTML 5. Plus, Silverlight does offer a lot more, it's not a mere flash clone that people play it down to be =/

Plus, Silverlight does offer a lot more, it's not a mere flash clone that people play it down to be =/

Virtually everything I've seen Silverlight used for on the web could have been done in Flash as well though. The only reason to use Silverlight in most cases is because you are a Microsoft shop and don't know how to use anything else. It's dumb to choose Silverlight when Flash will let you reach a wider audience, and in my opinion any contractor who suggests it should be fired and blacklisted.

Virtually everything I've seen Silverlight used for on the web could have been done in Flash as well though.

That's not the same thing. Just because implementations you've seen could be done in Flash doesn't mean all implementations can be, or that Silverlight wasn't a better choice in that situation.

The only reason to use Silverlight in most cases is because you are a Microsoft shop and don't know how to use anything else. It's dumb to choose Silverlight when Flash will let you reach a wider audience, and in my opinion any contractor who suggests it should be fired and blacklisted.

If Silverlight lets you do something better, then sure you should choose it. You're putting way too much emphasis on marketshare over anything else.

PS. Pretty sure MS engineers know how to use Flash.

That's not the same thing. Just because implementations you've seen could be done in Flash doesn't mean all implementations can be, or that Silverlight wasn't a better choice in that situation.

I said that virtually everything I've seen Silverlight used for on the web could also have been done with Flash. If it could also have been done with Flash, then Silverlight can't be a better choice. It's very simple. Similarly, if it can be done in all relevant browsers without using Flash, then Flash is not the best choice.

If Silverlight lets you do something better, then sure you should choose it. You're putting way too much emphasis on marketshare over anything else.

It's the only thing that matters.

PS. Pretty sure MS engineers know how to use Flash.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Flash isn't a better choice because Adobe uses it on its websites, it's a better choice because it will let you reach a wider audience.

Silverlight is currently installed on over 60% of all machines... thats impressive.

http://riastats.com

Impressive in context maybe (or maybe not, considering Microsoft's sneaky distribution), but 8.6% for v3 and 53% for v4 on the sites polled is not impressive when compared to 93% for Flash 10 and 2.8% for Flash 9. It should be obvious which platform is the better choice.

For me, part of the 'open web' is the ability for anyone to try and expand on standards with their own thing. Flash and Silverlight (although I'm not a huge fan of either) are welcome in my book, because it'll keep the web moving forward.

How on earth is it "irrational hatred" to point out that it is better to choose the solution that can reach over 90% of the market over the one that reaches 60%?

Your hatred is irrational because you just turn up in every Microsoft related thread and bash them for no reason.

Your 90% marketshare argument is absolutely pointless in this case. 60% vs 90% is irrelevant, especially considering that, like Flash, Silverlight is free and widely available. There are no limitations preventing its wider acceptance and installation is just as quick and easy as Flash installation. Given these facts, it makes little sense for developers with .NET experience (and there are exponentially more .of them out there than there are Flash developers) to learn Flash from scratch when they would find Silverlight a lot easier to learn. I mean, are you seriously suggesting that you'd rather take the time to learn a whole new development language and familiarise yourself with a whole new set of tools rather than just add a link telling your users to download a runtime package?

I could understand if you were arguing that Silverlight doesn't support key features that Flash does but your marketshare argument is particularly weak.

Your hatred is irrational because you just turn up in every Microsoft related thread and bash them for no reason.

That's how you choose to interpret it. I don't know if you're a Silverlight developer with a grudge or something.

Your 90% marketshare argument is absolutely pointless in this case. 60% vs 90% is irrelevant, especially considering that, like Flash, Silverlight is free and widely available. There are no limitations preventing its wider acceptance and installation is just as quick and easy as Flash installation.

Flash is already present on 93% of systems, including a large number where Silverlight cannot be installed by policy. It will always be a better choice than gambling on people caring enough that they choose to go to the trouble of also installing Silverlight (if they even can.)

Given these facts, it makes little sense for developers with .NET experience (and there are exponentially more .of them out there than there are Flash developers) to learn Flash from scratch when they would find Silverlight a lot easier to learn. I mean, are you seriously suggesting that you'd rather take the time to learn a whole new development language and familiarise yourself with a whole new set of tools rather than just add a link telling your users to download a runtime package?

Who cares what a .NET developer wants? If he wants to develop in .NET, then he should. However, if you run a company that wants something interactive on the web, you don't hire the .NET developer, you hire someone who can reach as many people as possible.

You're like one of those people who were always arguing that sites shouldn't support IE6 even when it had 30% of the market, "just because." It's not about ideology.

I'd like to see HTML5 do adaptive stream like Silverlight. Never going to happen, though.

While not technically HTML5, Apple's proposed and open HTTP Live Streaming supports adaptive streaming.

While not technically HTML5, Apple's proposed and open HTTP Live Streaming supports adaptive streaming.

That's good, and I didn't hear any major issues with the event stream last week but the penetration of that technology is just Apple at the moment.

Honestly, I was all for HTML5 video when news started going around about it but since then all I've read is more and more on what it can't do so I feel the future is still in plugins at it stands. HTTP live streaming seems pretty nice but as with anything it's just adoption.

Silverlight is currently installed on over 60% of all machines... thats impressive.

http://riastats.com

well, not that impressive considering Microsoft has been pushing it via Windows Update.

Virtually everything I've seen Silverlight used for on the web could have been done in Flash as well though. The only reason to use Silverlight in most cases is because you are a Microsoft shop and don't know how to use anything else. It's dumb to choose Silverlight when Flash will let you reach a wider audience, and in my opinion any contractor who suggests it should be fired and blacklisted.

From the technological and developer point of view, Silverlight is vastly superior to Flash. First, there are the whole range of .NET programming languages you can choose to develop with, and most are superior to ActionScript, and mostly bug-free compared to the gazillions of bugs and quirks in the Flash controls/ActionScript interactions. Yes, Flash can do most things Silverlight can do, but a lot of times Flash has to do it with tons of controls, strange hacks, and messed up code, while Silverlight can do it with clean, well-organized and easily readable code. Not to mention Visual Studio being a vastly superior programming IDE than Adobe Flash Professional.

The .NET platform is also much more efficient and secure.

As for which one to use, I'd say use Flash when you are building a public web site, since it is the de facto standard out there. But if you are building an internal web app for a company environment, Silverlight is hands down win. As for HTML5, it won't be able to replace either Flash or Silverlight. Maybe HTML7 or HTML8, but then based on the current trend, developing complex web apps in HTML, CSS and JS is just a pain in the @ss compared to using the .NET platform.

As for which one to use, I'd say use Flash when you are building a public web site, since it is the de facto standard out there. But if you are building an internal web app for a company environment, Silverlight is hands down win.

Exactly. When dealing with the public you want something that is accessible to as many as possible. What's best from the technical side and what has the best tools is secondary. What you use internally doesn't really matter, since you have control over all the systems there anyway.

Flash is slowly dying. Just like native Win32 API based programs are almost dead. Silverlight and .Net are the future of computing.

It's a bit of a stretch to call native win32 code almost dead, when most software is native win32 (including all of Windows itself). .NET might have a bright future, but today it is a minority platform. Out of the 11 programs I currently have running, only one is .NET.

Silverlight and .Net are the future of computing.

I'm all for sticking it to Adobe, but Flash being replaced by Silverlight would not be much of a victory. It just makes things more closed and gives Microsoft more power.

As for the difficulty in developing for HTML5, that's more down to a lack of tools. If someone managed to release awesome tools, it would be a victory for all. At least years down the road when HTML5 is actually implemented in the browsers most people use. It's not something that is "right around the corner," so any discussions about replacing Flash with it are way premature.

You're like one of those people who were always arguing that sites shouldn't support IE6 even when it had 30% of the market, "just because."

Well I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion but if we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion we'd all be using IE6 because it was the market leader so there was no point supporting an alternative.

It's not about ideology.

The only problem is that it's always about ideology for you. You ignore the facts to simply push you anti-MS position. You were the one that started spamming an article about Silverlight and HTML5 with nonsense about Flash and then completely ignore the fact that Silverlight is in many ways a better alternative, either because it's more capable or because there are more people that are familiar with related technologies. Nobody said that there's no place for Flash but to dismiss Silverlight's massive install base and the large pool of talent available to develop for it is just plain stupid.

Hopefully there aren't more people with as narrow-minded an attitude as yours because it's that sort of defeatism that has lead to Flash being the bloated monster that it is today. You're whole argument boils down to supporting the market leader rather than the better product.

It's a bit of a stretch to call native win32 code almost dead, when most software is native win32 (including all of Windows itself). .NET might have a bright future, but today it is a minority platform. Out of the 11 programs I currently have running, only one is .NET.

How many developers learn the Win32 API these days? I would think less than 1%. Even the legendary Charles Petzold no longer prefers the Win32 API. The last edition of Programming Windows was released in 1998. There's absolutely no reason to choose the Win32 API instead of .Net for building new applications.

I think 5 years from now, Win32 API developers will be an almost extinct breed. Hence I believe Win32 is gone.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!