Microsoft's Silverlight Strategy 'Has Shifted'

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.'"

Comments

Well, duh?

[caywen]

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:Well, duh?

[CAIMLAS]

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.

Translation

[MightyMartian]

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?"

I don't care about the DRM implications...

[by (1706743)]

I want Silverlight for Linux; essentially 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...I mean, I even use the proprietary nVidia drivers...

Re:I don't care about the DRM implications...

[MightyMartian]

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...

Those that sell Essential Liberty for decent 3D effects deserve neither Liberty or 3D effects!

Re:I don't care about the DRM implications...

[guyminuslife]

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.)

Re:no

[ArhcAngel]

Moonlight works ok.

HTML5

[bonch]

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

[R.Mo_Robert]

Apple popularized Firewire (which became IEEE 1394), not USB.

You must have missed the iMac (G3, I mean).

Re:HTML5

[bonch]

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:HTML5

[bennomatic]

WRT the floppies, you must either be joking or a kid. Long before Apple was the first to abandon 3.5" floppies, they were among the first mass market computer makers to adopt their use. When the original Mac came out, nearly every other system came by default with 5.25" floppy drives. 3.5" drives were available as options for those other systems, but the Mac was, if not the first, one of the first to have 3.5" as the built-in standard.

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:HTML5

[phillymjs]

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

[profplump]

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

[Iskender]

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!

[nine-times]

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:Thanks Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about the cases where "things for Apple's benefit" coincides with "things that benefit consumers"? They are not two mutually exclusive categories.

The HTML5 web is going to be a fun trip back to the days when Linux didn't have any of the gizmos needed to view video or anything else. Boy, I can't wait! Thanks Steve!

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 Opera that supports it?

Re:Thanks Apple!

[Phroggy]

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.

Silverlight, we barely knew ye..

[mewsenews]

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)

Re:no

[should_be_linear]

In Linux, I need .NET like I need shotgun blast to the face!

Re:no

[Joe Tie.]

Moonlight seems to be a solution in search of a problem. It works great with aspects of silverlight nobody uses. And the only thing lacking in it is the ability to play the drm video of the few siliverlight using sites anyone actually cares about.

Re:no

[timeOday]

The only thing I ever needed Silverlight for was to watch Netflix streaming, and Moonlight didn't help any there. It's like Mono to run .net, or Wine to run Win32; you'll get a little ways with it, just not enough to be very useful. Microsoft simply does not do cross-platform (not even to the point of releasing and then following their own standards so others can make compatible implementations). If they say they are going to, it's a ploy. Sorry to have to repeat slashdot dogma, but it happens to be true in this case.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Heh

[hairyfeet]

Yes on part of your post, but nobody has yet explained to me why supporting HTML V5 with H.264 is BETTER than supporting flash. It seems nobody is willing to talk about the elephant in the room: H.264, which is the biggest patent minefield in the history of bad patents. If we were talking WebM then yes, 100% right there behind you. But FOSS browsers like FF can't support H.264, since MPEG-LA has made it clear you WILL be cutting them a check, whereas Adobe doesn't give a shit who or what packages flash. Start advertising native H.264 support in a distro and watch MPEG-LA drop the troll hammer upon thee, whereas Adobe don't care, package away. So far they haven't even said boo about alternative render projects like Gnash.

So unless we can get the two Steves (Ballmer and Jobs) to get on board WebM I think we have a serious problem here. H.264 simply trades one master for another, and while I personally don't mind proprietary software as long as there is competition switching over to HTML V5 would pretty much hand the keys over to MPEG-LA, which have proven they just aren't nice. I only hope the web developers of the world will unite and demand that HTML V5 have a FOSS codec for video, be it Theora or WebM, rather than simply trade one lock in for another.

Hey Microsoft, here is a cloud seed for you...

[NullProg]

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

Not Cross-Platform ?

[eulernet]

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:HTML wins

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:no

[grcumb]

In Linux, I need .NET like I need shotgun blast to the face!

sudo aptitude install dick-cheney