Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Sparkle a Flash Killer?
Charmless1 writes to tell us eWeek is reporting that Microsoft has release new previews of their upcoming developer tools. Some have even dubbed these new tools as "Flash killers". From the article: "Microsoft's Expression Suite consists of the Expression Graphic Designer, Expression Interactive Designer and the Expression Web Designer. Microsoft has yet to release a CTP for the Web Designer, also known by its codename Quartz." Slashdot also covered some of the pre-release sentiments back in September.
Sparkle will never make it until it gets its own Newgrounds.com or Homestarrunner.com. A community of users, and large amount of created content is what really matters, otherwise games which use the Vitalize Plugin would be sweeping the internet.
...is create good IDEs.
When I first read the article, my first response to a tool meant to improve user experience, from Microsoft, is that they should change the acronym from WPF to WTF, since, as a user, that is what always goes through my head when Word or IE crash.
But, with further reading, I actually think Microsoft may find success here. With Visual Studio they have a good track record and may succeed again.
FREE - Java, J2EE and Ajax Audiobooks for Software Developers - www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
In all seriousness to the excellent gentlemen who insist on calling every new product "X's killer," has anything that has been labelled so ever amounted to anything? Have any of these purported "killers" actually killed? Seriously though, can someone provide a concrete example of this happening?
I suggest we go after the real killers. And have some reforms in the use of the word "killer" in headlines.
blog & fiction: jd87
I bet that in the beginning, it will run on many platforms. So there is no excuse for not using it. Then, when they have killed Flash, there will come a new version that only runs on a Microsoft platform because of some feature. Of course the inner workings will be closed due to some DRM thing or whatever so no you can't make a 100% compatible open source version.
At least that is how the normally do it, so why shouldn't they do it with Mr. Sparkle?
According to Xaml.Net, Xaml is like Flash using XML on the NEXT .Net plaform. WinFx will be ported back to WinXP, but to _really_ use it, you need the next Windows OS (Vista?)
Also, XAML has a document format like PDF, Rich Internet applications like AJAX and Xforms, Vector graphics like SVG, and Workflow, so that you can write whole applications using a application design tool and not writing explict code. Maybe it is trying to do everything and may not do one thing well. Of couse - tham might happen with FLASH if PDF is embedded with it.
A. All development tools are peanuts compared to developer salaries. Management do not object to spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a product if they get that much back in saved productivity. The fact that Eclipse is so good and free is a major plus point, but tool cost is pretty much irrelevant.
(Which isn't to say that Sparkle can't win - it just might win on the grounds that it is more productive as it fits in with Visual Studio, which seems to be the way many things are going - i.e. SQL Server uptake. It's a clever strategy - not targeting developers so much as those who set platform policy).
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh
Well, currently some of Microsoft's products use Flash in order to work. Examples are MSN Messenger and the Windows XP tour. They are not indispensable features, but eye candy most users appreciate. I think their first step towards widespread use is going to be to replace Flash in all of these with their new sparkly thingy. After that, it's all pretty much downhill.
Microsoft can afford to take their time with this. I don't think website developers are going to be particularly fond of this technology, but as grandparent states, it's going to be a lot easier to develop with Sparkle than anything else. .NET, anyone?
Favorite quote: "
As a long time Flash developer I've been following the entire Sparkle/Avalon story and this is how it sums up according to me:
- Microsoft has awaken to "embrace" the web only until recently. Vista, however is a much older strategy to improve the desktop beyond what the web might deliver to keep the people locked in (on an OS level). As you know if Internet starts delivering multiplatform rich applications, the reasons to use Windows become less.
- Technogies like Flash threaten Microsoft's "monopol" on rich GUI-s, and Flash works on all platforms.
- Microsoft tries to convince the public that "Sparkle was never meant to compete with Flash, it's for apps and so on". While this is true, it's also false, because Flash is quickly heading into the applications arena, and Microsoft is quickly heading into the Internet rich GUI-s. Basically they meet in the middle and who survives isn't clear. But keep in mind both Adobe and (ex)Macromedia are totally aware that the Vista technologies are ALSO meant as Flash killer and don't fool yourself with what MS says.
- It's not true Avalon/XAML will work only on Windows Vista. For starters, it'll also work on Windows XP and 2003. Also Microsoft prepares cross-platform version of the technology, with less features, JavaScript support and so on, which has been demonstrated to work on a Mac. The initiative is called WPF/E, or: Windows Presentation Foundation / Everywhere.
- The Sparkle team has at least 4-5 ex. top (ex)Macromedia Flash employees, Flash gurus and alike. They all come in the team with their Flash habits and it shows in the interface of the program: it's simply MADE so Flash developers will dig it. And I dig it.
- Quartz is for web pages, don't confuse it with Sparkle, the Avalon XAML designer program.
- A weakness of Sparkle will be that it won't be suited for complex cartoons and animations like Flash is. Flash tried to move away from animations and cartoons as well in an attempt to look as a serious application platform, but later Macromedia regretted as they alienated their core audience, and the most creative artists out there. The latest version of Flash proves cartoons and animations ARE important after all, and a good share of the features are aided for artists.
Bah that should be about all important... I leave the conclusions to you.
What's wrong with flash? It does what it does quite well, it's flexible and extensible. It's mature and has almost 100% market penetration. Why does it need replacing.
Just today I experienced a considerable amount of frustration because of Flash. In my physics class at my university we have to turn in homework on the Internet, and the website we're using uses Flash for entering equations. Several of the problems required us to enter Greek symbols (like pi and omega). However, when I tried to enter these characters, half of the character would display and the cursor would remain in the same spot as before, so if you continued the equation, it would overwrite the Greek symbol. It's a weird bug and hard to describe (sorry if you don't understand what's going on), but the point is it prevented me from doing my homework. I ended up figuring out that when I tried doing it on Windows instead of Flash on Linux (the latest version still), it worked. So, clearly, the Linux version of Flash has some weird bug in it that Macromedia has failed to address. In the end, I was inconvenienced because I had to reboot into Windows to do my homework instead of on my normal operating system.
This isn't the first time I've encountered bugs with the Linux version of Flash; take a look at this (scroll down to glitches and then watch the cartoon for yourself on Linux). Obviously not getting to play a song on a cartoon website isn't going to scar me for life, but my point is that Macromedia (should I say Adobe?) isn't doing a very good of a job on the Linux version, probably because they feel that Linux doesn't have enough marketshare to significantly affect their profits.
If your answer involves "open source" then you can stop right there. Nobody (except about half the slashdot audience) gives a rat's ass about source code as long as the software works properly.
The reason that some people are concerned with open source is that it offers a way out of monopolies. The biggest problem isn't that the Flash player itself is proprietary (even though it would be nice if it weren't); it's that SWF is proprietary. This suppresses competition from would-be open source (or even other proprietary) Flash players that have to compete with Adobe/Macromedia. If SWF was open, an open source Flash player could be easily written that would eliminate such bugs.
We can always debate whether or not proprietary or open source development models produce better quality code, but proprietary formats are never good. All they do is hurt competition, which helps no one but the authors. Now that Adobe owns Macromedia, hopefully the Flash people will take a hint from PDF: open formats work. If SWF is opened, great; there would be no need to replace the format, only potentially the player. But as long as SWF remains proprietary, it needs to be replaced by a format that everyone can use.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.