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

[Eric Veteran]

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

Not as a normal update. It's only shown if you have "other products from Microsoft" turned on or you already have it installed. Also, Silverlight for OS X and Moonlight aren't sent via WU. :)

[Joshie]

Is there still a Silverlight vs. Flash debate going on? I thought it was understood that Flash was on its way out where HTML5 will replace it, and Silverlight has a brighter future for rich content.

hdood can think what he wants to think about market share, but there's no denying that Silverlight is almost comically more stable than Flash across platforms. I've never seen Silverlight crash a browser or do crazy stuff to my system's resources.

Silverlight seems to address every single criticism Flash has ever gotten, and everything else is being replaced by HTML5 standards, so it's REALLY weird to see Flash defended as a development platform on the web by someone on a tech forum.

[hdood]

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.

I reached that conclusion because you are arguing that it's irrelevant that using Flash will let you reach a wider audience. And no, the logical conclusion is not that everyone should use IE6. Everyone should use what they want, but a business who depends on reaching as wide an audience as possible has to use what lets them do just that.

The only problem is that it's always about ideology for you. You ignore the facts to simply push you anti-MS position.

I have in this very thread said that it has nothing to do with the technology itself. It's purely down to market share, nothing else. If Silverlight had 93% of the market and Flash had less, then Silverlight would have been the best choice. It doesn't though, but you still insist that it's the best choice.

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.

If you actually learn to read, you will see that I started by responding to a post that asked which direction to go for interactive content for his company. I gave my opinion based on what would let his company reach as many people as possible. Clearly you do not think he should, and that he should go with Silverlight just because you like it the best. That's fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.

You're whole argument boils down to supporting the market leader rather than the better product.

Yes it does, because this is not a discussion about ideology or what you personally think is the best product. It's one of what will allow a company to reach as many users as possible. You seem completely incapable of understanding this very simple concept. I have at no point said that Flash is "better" than Silverlight.

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

Well, I think five years is a bit short, but if we're talking about years into the future, then it's likely. I just thought it was a bit extreme to say that Win32 was "almost dead," when it's still the primary development platform on Windows.

There's absolutely no reason to choose the Win32 API instead of .Net for building new applications.

At least if you look a few years into the future. The reason .NET hasn't taken over is because of the increased resource use and the dependency on an extremely large runtime (which will never be in sync with windows if you want to use a recent version.) That becomes less and less relevant, although certain types of high performance code will still want to stay native. That includes games and multimedia software (or at least the more lower level parts.) Personally I think a good indicator will be when Microsoft starts shipping .NET code in Windows. I'm guessing that will be around Windows 9. I have no real issue with .NET when the hardware to support it is there.

[hdood]

Is there still a Silverlight vs. Flash debate going on? I thought it was understood that Flash was on its way out where HTML5 will replace it, and Silverlight has a brighter future for rich content.

Honestly, most of the Silverlight stuff I encounter on the web is the exact same kind of stuff that is also being done with Flash. If we're going to replace the Flash stuff with HTML5 (which is not realistic, at least not for a few years yet. HTML5 is not finished, has little browser support, and even less development tools), then we should also get rid of most Silverlight stuff.

Silverlight seems to address every single criticism Flash has ever gotten, and everything else is being replaced by HTML5 standards, so it's REALLY weird to see Flash defended as a development platform on the web by someone on a tech forum.

I don't understand why it's so exceptionally difficult for people here to understand that things are discussed in a context. Not everything is about the technical side of things. Personally I consider Adobe to be one of the worst software companies out there, but that has nothing to do this.

[Joshie]

Honestly, most of the Silverlight stuff I encounter on the web is the exact same kind of stuff that is also being done with Flash. If we're going to replace the Flash stuff with HTML5 (which is not realistic, at least not for a few years yet. HTML5 is not finished, has little browser support, and even less development tools), then we should also get rid of most Silverlight stuff.

I don't understand why it's so exceptionally difficult for people here to understand that things are discussed in a context. Not everything is about the technical side of things. Personally I consider Adobe to be one of the worst software companies out there, but that has nothing to do this.

Well it can't just be a matter of marketshare. While you may think that's the most important, it's definitely not the driving force behind business decisions. Silverlight already has a larger marketshare than iOS does for smartphones, but iOS attracts thousands of developers and is quite a lucrative ecosystem. It was attracting developers even when it had less. The large library of applications then attracted more users, which attracted more developers, back and forth, building on each other.

The reality is, you really can start with content first. It's what Flash had to do, after all. It had Shockwave and embedded video to go up against for active content back then. Both crappy as all get out, but Flash was pretty crappy, too. What's more important is ease of acquiring the software. As long as Silverlight is extremely easy for anyone to install, people will install it to get to the content they want.

A lot of people have forgotten why we installed Flash ten years ago. It wasn't just another habit back then, and it wasn't something we relied on for experiencing the web. We did it because there were 'extras', and we love extras, and all we had to do was install this little plug-in and we were set.

Holy crap people love extras. People click yes to all kinds of things. There are still browser bars, even for Firefox. There are smiley kits and mouse pointer kits and wallpaper apps and crazy, crazy stuff that casual computer users click yes to all day long. We're always going to have people who refuse to install silverlight because they've deluded themselves into thinking it somehow 'bloats' their system, and we're always going to have people who don't want anything but HTML5, but these people will also always be in the minority.

I mean, Christ, time was enthusiasts were eager to install ANYTHING to experience something new, no matter how silly or burdensome it was. And now enthusiasts don't seem to want to try anything at all unless a committee has nodded their heads to it first. How conservative we've become, a group of people that 15 years ago installed VRML plugins in Netscape for no conceivable reason. o.O

[guru]

hey, what do you mean no reason at all. vrml bought 3d to the web ... j/k +1 to your post.

[hdood]

Well it can't just be a matter of marketshare. While you may think that's the most important, it's definitely not the driving force behind business decisions. Silverlight already has a larger marketshare than iOS does for smartphones, but iOS attracts thousands of developers and is quite a lucrative ecosystem. It was attracting developers even when it had less. The large library of applications then attracted more users, which attracted more developers, back and forth, building on each other.

What does the Silverlight browser plugin (which, ironically, is not available on WP7) have to do with Apple's mobile OS though? I think we're talking about different things. I'm talking about what is the best choice for a business that provides content to users. You normally want your company's web presence to be accessible to as many people as possible. That means that the solution that is accessible to 93% of people with no additional requirements will normally be preferable to the one that only reaches 60%. If possible, you want to go with it.

What's more important is ease of acquiring the software. As long as Silverlight is extremely easy for anyone to install, people will install it to get to the content they want.

To some extent. It depends on just how interested they are in the content. If you rely on this, you are going to have people that say no thanks (and the bar for this can be pretty low), and you are going to have people that can't install Silverlight even if they want to because they don't control the computer they're using. Flash is still going to win.