Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Killing Silverlight?
SharkLaser writes "Silverlight 5 might be last version released by Microsoft. Several industry insiders and partners for the last few weeks have heard from their own Microsoft sources that there won't be new versions released after Silverlight 5. Status on service packs and support for Silverlight is unclear, as Microsoft haven't yet released lifecycle support end date even for the previous Silverlight 4. By their support page they will give full year head-up before ending support. With Adobe ending development of Flash for mobile browsers and Microsoft ending development of Silverlight, HTML5 video looks a lot more promising. But will content providers be able to give out their material without DRM and how does HTML5 perform with non-video side of Flash and Silverlight?"
...nothing of value were lost.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Doesn't Netflix use Silverlight for streaming? Will Netflix move to some other technology?
So where does this leave Netflix, the only company willing to take dirty bribe money to require silverlight for use with their service? Even Hulu doesn't use silverlight.
What about the Olympics? They require(d) silverlight to view any footage, live or recorded.
moox. for a new generation.
This would require major migration for MLB.com which requires silverlight and DRM. Somehow I doubt that they will learn the right lesson though.
Flash and Silverlight represent the mid-1990s way of doing things with third party browser addons. Back when we needed crutches like these, they were useful. The leg has healed, though, so it's time to throw the crutches under a bus.
Content producers should just suck up and use non-DRM video streams. They should all know by now that both Flash and Silverlight video "protections" have been circumvented just like Blu-Ray, DVD, etc and that there is really no technological recourse against this.
The idea that a general-purpose applet platform, with all the attendant security risks, is worth keeping simply to play DRM-encumbered video strikes me as utterly daft. It's like keeping a rabid rottweiler in your kid's playroom so that they'll have something to draw.
Where did articles go?
Did anyone else have trouble reading the summary due to the lack of articles such as "the" and "a" and the mixture of tenses?
I know, I know. Don't be a grammar nazi. But isn't language something the editors should clean up before posting?
So glad I'm off it! ... now to go learn HTML + javascript.
Oh, wait! I already did that.
Maybe they think it's perfect?
Coincidentally, Microsoft released the first version of their HTML5 Player Framework today:
http://playerframework.codeplex.com/
First there was Flash video over RTMP, then there was Adobe HTTP Dynamic streaming (HDS). Both of these were ADAPTIVE streaming technologies, and extremely popular an widley used. Moreso RTMP, but HDS is starting to gain adoption.
HTML-5 does not provide any method for any kind of adaptive bitrate, or fragmented video delivery. It is strictly PROGRESSIVE download - i.e. download the whole file, and play it. There are a billion problems with this. No adaptive bitrate (downgrade video quality if you cannot meet the sustained bitrate), and difficulty in caching (caching one giant file very difficult for a reactive, real-time cache, as opposed to caching smalller HDS or HLS "fragments"). The only other really "competitor" would be Apples HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) - which is the standard for iOS devices, and starting to gain adoption on Set-Top Box-devices, but pretty invisible on the desktop space.
So...my question is... "What about video!?"
Flash and Silverlight represent the mid-1990s way of doing things with third party browser addons. Back when we needed crutches like these, they were useful. The leg has healed, though, so it's time to throw the crutches under a bus.
Content producers should just suck up and use non-DRM video streams. They should all know by now that both Flash and Silverlight video "protections" have been circumvented just like Blu-Ray, DVD, etc and that there is really no technological recourse against this.
Really? Do tell how exactly those Silverlight protections have been circumvented. Unless you are talking about a streaming media recorder which simply records the stream as it plays on your PC, I am not aware of any way to defeat Silverlight DRM. The use of separate protected streams for audio and video is fiendishly clever and I've never heard of a successful way to crack it. A video forum where I regularly participate gets posts all the time asking how to record Netflix streams and nobody has ever suggested anything but a streaming media recorder.
"... wank wank, yank yank, this that, rant rant, piss piss " -> This is the reaction we get EVERYtime we tell that microsoft will probably kill this or that service/product that they think they are not benefiting from enough. not 4 months ago when it was almost evident that they would drop silverlight, zygotes here were flaming us when we suggested that, citing this or that reason. 'silverlight is used widenly in *insert niche application here*', 'it has a strong community' this that. what happened ?
.net, and when those articles appeared here, the same people lambasted anyone suggesting that microsoft may ditch .net people too, even while .net users were in a stampede in their own forums over questions over future of .net.
there has been numerous news regarding how they were wavering about
microsoft is a private company with american corporate morals. they will not hesitate from ditching all of you when they see it fit. 'they' here means whichever product/technology manager at that time is dominating the policy. and it varies.
Read radical news here
Will content providers be able to give out their material without DRM? Yes, in the sense that it's possible. Will they be *willing*? Probably not. Will we see all sorts of harebrained, browser-breaking hacks implemented to try and bring DRM to JavaScript and HTML video? Almost certainly.
The Internet Says... This was kind of DOA anyway..cheap flash knockoff riding the .NET wave? no. .NET needs to stay where its at, and flash (and plugins like this in general, need to just DIE).
With Adobe ending development of Flash for mobile browsers and Microsoft ending development of Silverlight, HTML5 video looks a lot more promising.
no it doesn't. it looks exactly as promising as it was before. the only difference is that there's now less competition driving innovation in that direction. the death of competition is never a good thing.
From what I understand, Silverlight functionallity is being rolled into WinRT. With Windows 8, WinRT takes care of the exact same things that WPF and Silverlight did and brings to the table the inclusion of HTML5/Javascript.
No functionallity will be lost with this and it's not much of a transition for developers either, as their code is directly portable to WinRT.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
So will World of Goo run under HTML 5?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Making the loss of Mono even less significant.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/11/08/215243/banshee-mono-may-be-dropped-from-ubuntu-default
Given the market penetration of .NET as opposed to Silverlight, I think this is utter nonsense. And now that Oracle is screwing the pooch vis-à-vis Java, you can expect more .NET, not less.
This is a misconception from people who believe silverlight is a flash competitor, and a flash competitor only. Silverlight will continue to work as a browser plugin, but its focus will probably shift from "all things RIA" to streaming video. It is already obvious that there is a niche for subscription video (a lot of paid for video content has alread switched from flash/wmp to silverlight). Apart from streaming video, I can't see microsoft putting much weight behind silverlight as the solution for RIA on the web. For that, html5 is much more useful (which Adobe has discovered as well). As for the technology in Silverlight (i.e. .xaml etc.) that has already evolved into the platform for WP7 development, and future windows platforms.
I thought DRM was already a thing of the past. Who is still doing that?
The death of mobile Flash, and the rumor of the same for Silverlight all in one day? The web is going to be a far better place in the future.
This may be a bit off-topic, so I apologize. I know that content publishers nag and nag about losing revenue so they punish the people who actually pay for the privilege.
I wonder how much piracy would happen if publishers just trusted their users and released videos without horrible amounts of DRM. (My biggest pet peeve is not being able to just play a Blu Ray disc but having to sit through at least 15 minutes of ads.)
While I know some bad eggs would copy the file, isn't it being done regardless? So my question is DRM the only thing keeping HTML5 from really taking off?
We don't live in Shouldland.
Last I heard, Netflix streaming uses Silverlight, despite the completely lack (at the time) of support on any platform other than Winders. (Now there's Moonlight, but I suppose that will go away as well.)
So, I'm wondering what Netflix will switch to, and if anyone over there feels the slightest bit of embarrassment.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
is Sliverlight?
Every major for profit content producer.
From a technology point of view Silverlight is by far better than anything else that can be used to program the Web. Its lack of Linux and portable support is what made it unsuccessful.
What do you think this means for JavaFX, recently revised by Oracle? Wasted effort?
would open up the source to their players instead of killing off their products. It's no secret that Flash's performance is better than HTML5's (with the exception of video) and a lot of what Flash does is just being reinvented with HTML5. Why not just open source the player and have the browsers implement "flash engines". OR you could use the technology in the players to improve HTML5 Element/JavaScript performance.
A man can dream eh?
being the great Open Source News source you are, it would be great if you included some information on how the moonlight team is taking this. Who knows, maybe Netflix will move to moonlight.
The thought of hanging myself at my student loan organization doesn't bug me as much when I think it might make a differ
HTML 5 is not going to happen with IE 8 gaining marketshare if anything from corporations who are terrified to update their browsers and 30% of the population who does not know what a browser is who uses what comes on their computer.
If MS is serious about HTML 5 this issue must be addressed as IE 9 is barely making inroads at all and IE 8 is still growing.
With Windows 8 going to flop unless MS does something to save the desktop portion in it, you can bet history will repeat itself in the 2010's being known as the decade of Win7 and IE 8.Very similiar to the 2000s as the decade of XP/IE 6. If MS includes IE 10 by default with win 7 sp 2 OEM or a enterprise edition there is hope we can abandon flash and silverlight and switch to HTML 5.
Until IE 8, 7, 6 get below 10% usage silverlight and flash are here to stay and HTML 5 is out expect for mobile devices for a long long time.
Personally, I think in 5 years I will do web browsing from my phone as it will be much more advanced with 3D, fonts with effects, animations, and video as the desktop web will be years behind unless the situation changes.
http://saveie6.com/
The Dutch public TV offers some services to show content over the internet build on MS Silverlight, e.g. the possibility to view missed broadcast.
Until recently no easy alternative was available, so users on Linux had to do with the moonlight implementation which is/was way behind. For some time the service allows one to view the content also with Flash. Looks like they knew already that the single vendor implementation posed some risks. Hope that the dual implementation has paved the way for HTML5. Though I've little hope that these services will be implemented without the burden of proprietary codex's and DRM.
Thank god it's gone I get SO SICK of people reinventing the wheel.
And HTML5 is one of them: HTTP Live Streaming.
Do you have any idea how many applications, from business tools to video games, depend on the .NET framework?
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Sounds more like they are letting it die a natural death rather than killing it.
They have an app for Android and iOS phones, no reason they wouldn't make a Windows or OSX app if they really wanted to.
I8-D
Since Silverlight is coming to the Xbox in a big way within the next few weeks. I suppose they could transition that to a different platform, but I don't think the large number of content providers they lined up for this release would be thrilled.
There is so many things HTML 5 can't do like print. Silverlight out of browser applications are great because they are very easy to update. I guess people will just download apps instead of going to websites then.
Where are the RIA client APIs that take advantage of HTML5?
The #1 tool of any app developer that doesn't want to waste time is a solid foundation to build on.
In the desktop arena, you have a plethora of API choices depending on your platform and needs -- and those choices are all viable. In the web space, you have a plethora of incomplete, poorly implemented and dying JavaScript choices (Dojo, JQuery, YUI, GWT, etc.), and the most successful are not yet HTML5 ready (mostly because HTML5 isn't even a finished spec yet!). Add to that that HTML5 won't be ready and available on the majority of browsers for many years to come and there's a problem brewing for RIA development on the web just as it was getting going.
Flex and Silverlight have their problems -- but they are a lot more developer friendly than the junk that is currently available for HTML5.
Yes, and it sucks eggs. Most importantly, I can't access it from my Android phone.
I thought DRM was already a thing of the past. Who is still doing that?
Netflix, for one.
Move over, Web surfing. Netflix movies now take up more of the Internet pipes going into North American homes.
A study published Tuesday by Sandvine Inc. shows that Netflix movies and TV shows account for nearly 30 percent of traffic into homes during peak evening hours, compared with less than 17 percent for Web browsing.
Only about a quarter of homes with broadband subscribe to Netflix, but watching movies and TV shows online takes up a lot of bandwidth compared with Web surfing, email and practically every other Internet activity except file sharing and videoconferencing.
As late as last year, both Web surfing and peer-to-peer file sharing â" mainly the illegal trading of copyrighted movies â" were each larger than Netflix's traffic.
Netflix's Internet traffic overtakes Web surfing [May 17]
Barnes & Noble made a big deal out of its brand-new Nook Tablet's compatibility with Netflix and Pandora at its recent unveiling, apparently giving Amazon a bit of a complex. Amazon did its best to one-up the Nook in today's release, rolling out the laundry list of Fire-friendly apps that will be available on day one, including "Netflix, Rhapsody, Pandora, Twitter, Comics by comiXology, Facebook, The Weather Channel and popular games from Zynga, EA, Gameloft, PopCap and Rovio."
Amazon now says "several thousand" Android apps will be available through the Amazon Appstore for Kindle Fire, considerably less than the hundreds of thousands of apps currently populating the Android Market. Of course, this could be a good thing, as much of what's offered there is pure garbage.
Kindle Fire: Yep, it'll have Netflix, Pandora, and more
It seems the power of HTML 5 is just some new tags for multimedia and the browser support for them. It is just a markup language. When I read articles/tutorials on HTML 5, I don't see how a markup language comes anywhere close to Silverlight or Flash/Flex in terms of a rich set of libraries and language features to support interactive applications. Javascript comes no where close to touching either of these technologies IMO, and it is sad to hear the both are potentially on the way out. Additional reasons why HTML 5 alone is not the new Flash/Silverlight can be found among answers here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2172626/how-can-html5-replace-flash
I am sure someone will fill the void left by these products, perhaps something new that leverages HTML 5 for display/graphics but has something more substantial than javascript. Probably in the interim we will see libraries like javascript trying to fill the void, but its still javascript at the heart.
and I thought only www.hooters.com only used Silverlight ... what a pain
so sad :(
minimalistisch webdesign und grafikdesign in berlin
"With Adobe ending development of Flash for mobile browsers and Microsoft ending development of Silverlight"
Where's citation for the latter? You can't turn a rumour into a premise. Not without looking like a bit of an eejit, anyway.
Help me figure this out: is there something about the <video> tag that makes DRM not work? Because if there is, I cannot see it.
You put in the video tag and you list sources. Let's for example assume I've got a FnordPlay protected MPEG-4 video file that I'm entitled to view. Everything I can see leads me to believe that if I put that file on my own web server, and put an HTML5 page with a video tag there next to it, I'd have a web page that I could navigate to and see the content, but which others would navigate to and couldn't see the content, unless they authenticated with FnordPlay with my credentials first (and then they could).
I see absolutely nothing that would interfere with that in the spec.
What will Miguel de Icaza do for a job now?
I don't do web programming. I'm an old applications guy, and I've been writing code since 1984. I've done assembler, C, C++, C#, Pascal, VB, Objective C, and dabbled in all kinds of technologies, languages, and API's. I loathe web programming (no offense to the web guys out there). Can anyone explain to me how to accomplish the following with HTML5 and make a convert out of me?
I have 10 developers working on 3 related .NET applications. We share libraries across all 3 apps to get good object/code reuse. We started writing business logic behind web services last year and sharing objects between our client code and our server code by compiling our shared libraries for either client or server deployment. We have now added a 4th 'application' which is a 'rich web client' application using Silverlight, and a very large percentage of our code is nicely reusable. We can invoke our web services from our Silverlight client using the same libraries and data objects we developed for our desktop applications (compiled for Silverlight). Even better, we keep Silverlight sandboxed so the client runs identically regardless of browser, and even works just fine on Mac.
I simply don't see how I can achieve this level of code reuse, cross-platform compatibility, and browser consistency with HTML5. I have nothing against the technology, but we aren't developing mildly interactive web pages here... We are building full-on rich client apps with Silverlight, and sharing a crazy amount of code with our business logic, and desktop apps. Converting to HTML5 seems, well, retarded for our needs.
How will HTML5 make me faster or more efficient? How will it improve my end user experience? How will it help me reuse code and leverage my investment in my existing codebase? How can I 'rapid-app develop' my way through UI elements like treeviews, and grids, and RTF controls, etc.? Either I am way out of touch with what HTML5 can actually do, or Microsoft is on crack.
I don't give a fig about Metro, and neither do my clients. We've already decided IF we need to go down the mobile / tablet road that we will develop (1) for iOS and (2) investigate a limited feature HTML solution. But these are way down on the priority list. HTML5 simply doesn't offer me anything helpful, and quite the opposite, will probably make my life a living hell trying to work around the technology.
Just wait and see. I'm betting that .NET will be so cumbersome and buggy in regards to integration in Windows 8 that it will be the next one in the chopping block
Why would it be cumbersome and buggy in Windows 8? What do you think would be used as the alternative to .Net?
I honestly can't see this as a big problem on Microsoft - they have quite a long track record of supporting their tools - even legacy Visual Basic skills can be used today quite effortlessly. Yes, they have had their misses and some tools or even languages (J++ comes to mind from the old days...) have been deprecated quite quickly after a blistering start but take a look around - there are frameworks and languages coming and going everywhere. If you want to bet safely learn C and C++ and code your own supporting libraries. Yes, it sucks when vendors pull plug on technology. But the days of learning Fortran or Visual Basic once and expecting to have guaranteed job for the rest of your life are over (well, if you are a true Fortran or VB genius you can get a nice paying job in maintenance these days...), And the same applies to OSS as well - they are not immune. Projects and languages come and go - yes, in the support side they are at an advantage because if you are a true guru you can dive into the source and support the platform - but I don't see the platform support as a huge issue on Microsoft side either. With right DLLs you can still run Win32 VB applications just fine - yes, the vendor doesn't support those anymore and doesn't develop new features but you still got what you have when you chose the platform.
Can you give examples of Open Source projects (in programming) which Microsoft has tried to emulate and has ended up with barely working and sucking copy?
Silverlight on web had really no big and bright future, it was just a poke on Adobe to steal marketshare on (DRM) video delivery. But those skills learned there are not totally wasted, it is not *that* hard to transform from one Microsoft architecture to another. But if your big bet was Silverlight on browsers (cross-platform/browser) then well, you are out of luck but it did not require a genius to figure that out from the start.
I'm betting that .NET will be so cumbersome and buggy in regards to integration in Windows 8 that it will be the next one in the chopping block
Windows 8 Developer Preview is available for two months now, and showcases how .NET integrates with Windows 8. As a user, you won't know the difference. As a developer, it's probably the most convenient of three available stacks, largely because it has language-level support for asynchronous programming (and Win8 APIs are very async-heavy to force developers to write non-blocking code for smoother UI) - in both C++ and JS, you have to manually chain callbacks. Think the difference between Node.js, and Twisted Python w/yield.
If you have any comments on the actual state of said integration - i.e. if you've seen the dev preview - how about getting more specific? If you haven't, then why even bother posting?
Microsoft might no longer develop Silverlight for the web, but Silverlight programming model is what is behind the Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro & Other platforms, so in other words it won't die, it is actually going to outlive most of us
With Adobe ending development of Flash for mobile browsers and Microsoft ending development of Silverlight, HTML5 video looks a lot more promising.
Actually, HTML5 looks to be the only option left because the competitors are committing hara-kiri. That doesn't mean it's "more promising".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It appears that many people think of Silverlight as something unique (or just another video streaming client), when in fact Silverlight is really just an in-browser container for XAML (for UI) combined with the .NET CLR (C#, VB, libraries). Interestingly, this is very similar to some other Microsoft technologies:
Silverlight = XAML + CLR
WPF = XAML + CLR
Windows 8 Metro = XAML + CLR
Windows Phone = XAML + CLR
There are, of course, some differences in each case (as well as alternatives for each platform), but the fact the Silverlight may go away doesn't mean any of the underlying technologies are going away (or the effort to learn them was wasted), it just means that XAML + CLR won't be available as a browser plug-in (and for developers that wish to make an app that can be distributed/launched from the web without installing, XBAP works very well).
The beauty of Silverlight has always been that it didn't require learning a whole new language, libraries, UI architecture, etc. (in fact, you could share common source files between your client code and your server code). If you know WPF, you know 99% of Silverlight.
You'll notice that none of that has anything to do with video streaming. Anyone who has done serious application development in Silverlight knows that streaming video is an infinitesimal part of Silverlight. Similarly, anyone who thinks HTML + JavaScript is even remotely as capable as XAML + CLR has no idea what Silverlight really brings to the table.
I thought DRM was already a thing of the past. Who is still doing that?
Anything having to do with major movie studios.
Not 100% sure about TV shows, but I think it's the same.
The music companies have mostly given up on DRM, but no one else did.
Microsoft is not killing Silverlight. Even if Silverlight 5 is the last release, it is not even released yet. There is full Silverlight support in 'normal mode' Windows 8 and it is still leagues above HTML/JS in terms of LOB app development productivity. The new Metro application layer is basically Silverlight, you can make a few namespace changes and run Silverlight apps in Metro, and this XAML/C# development style will likely be the preferred way to develop for Windows 8, which isn't even out yet.
I would have thought people should have realized by now that Microsoft never sticks with anything and you should never rely your business on anything that is dependent on support from Microsoft . The list is endless: Zune, PlayForSure, Visual J++, DDE, Visual Basic, WinG, Sidewinder, DirectInput e.t.c. Your best bet is to only use core functions in Windows and some development environment not made by Microsoft.
In this case, I have to disagree. There's only a very small part of Silverlight that is unique to it. Most of Silverlight (>99%?) is applicable to WPF, Windows Phone, Windows 8 Metro, etc. That, in my opinion, is one of the biggest benefits of using .NET - you can use the same languages, libraries, UI architecture, etc. everywhere without having to have a completely different skill set for writing web services, desktop apps, browser apps, tablet apps, mobile apps. Other than Microsoft's solution, I'm not aware of another single architecture that you can learn once and apply to all those platforms.
Last I heard, Netflix streaming uses Silverlight, despite the completely lack (at the time) of support on any platform other than Winders.
According to wikipedia, Silverlight is supported on Macs by Microsoft's own software.
lol...what?
I work in web software development management and it is obvious that MS is going to bet the ranch on Windows / Phone / 8 / Metro, and throw their legacy development partners / users under the bus.
I hope it pays off for them. It's been a long time coming, maybe they've finally seen the light. Problem is, when you make such a radical change, your legacy folks will be forced to seriously consider other options from other vendors.
The interesting part is that if they do succeed, it'll be MS and not Apple or Google driving the bleeding edge - MS will be freer to take take risks on new tech than other established platforms with legacy baggage to drag along. The cool kids might be attracted to the new shiny MS dev tools rather than the staid J2EE etc alternatives...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
No Silverlight.
What was the point of it anyway? Total waste of time - just another file type that needs to be converted - stupidstupidstupid. Web disaster too.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Microsoft discontinued VB6 in 1999, and yet now, in 2011, you can still install VB6 - even on (as of yet unreleased) Windows 8 - and create or update applications, that are compatible with Windows 8.
I have zero fear of the implications that Microsoft, who plans very far in advance, will not be supporting version if Silverlight past version 5 (which is still in beta, FYI). This means the drop dead porting date for your Silverlight applications in probably a bit past 2025.
All this Silverlight FUD is from people who know nothing about the extraordinary legacy support Microsoft provides, their very long product lifecycles, and their far ahead thinking.
You are right, I'm venting a little bit because MS products have pissed me off a few times. I am talking from experience, not blindly bashing MS. I am a C# developer, so I do like .NET, but there are a few things surrounding .NET that really suck.
Silverlight is not just a video streaming tech. It's a great client-side library that works great for business apps.
Currently, there is no JS widget kit (Dojo, et al) that provides the experience that SL can.
SL has a long life as an enterprise solution platform.
MS could even produce a version of SL that renders to the HTML5 canvas.
Not while CEO Reed Hastings sits on Microsoft's Board of Directors. They will just transition to whatever proprietary next-gen DRM garbage Microsoft haphazardly staples onto HTML5.
I have never, ever used Silverlight. When it was first brought out I refused to install it. When my wife and I bought new PCs this year I uninstalled it the day we got the computers. Windows Update keeps telling me that updates are available and I always tell it to ignore them. If Silverlight goes away, it will only affect me in one way: I might stop getting notifications to update software that I don't even have.
We have not lost anything that important, but many have lost the money they spent getting certified in this crappy technology.
...
not.
Now we can finally get a version of Moonlight that's fully compatible with the latest version of Silverlight... Eventually....
Nothing to see here. Move along.
I'm planning to get a DVD player this holiday season that supports Netflix. I wonder how this will impact all those that already have devices (game systems, tvs, etc) that support netflix. I just went through watching all 7 seasons of Trailer Park Boys via Netflix watching them on my wife's laptop and via a windows VM on my computer. It was great! Even if I could have figured out how to copy them via Netflix, I wouldn't have. I mean, I know I can go out and download them via torrents, but as long as they are available on Netflix, why should I?
I've always wondered about this kind of thing from way back when MP3s emerged for music. If they would make the content cheap and available, we wouldn't have this rabid need to hoarde it. Now there is no guarantee that Netflix will always have what I want to see, and I do have to pay a subscription fee... but as long as I do and they have what I want to watch, I don't feel the need to have a local copy. Once someone gets it, and content is available all the time for a reasonable subscription price, I don't think people would be so hell-bent on retaining local copies of stuff. Some will, but I think they put way too much focus on preventing that instead of making it unnecessary.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Think about silverlight, but not as a plugin, but natively on the web. I thin the future will look like this. Js and html cant solve all problems, you need some native code there not depending on slowly emerging vendor standarts.