Posted on July 30th, 2009 by Stuart Turton
Silverlight not so Flash for Microsoft
When Microsoft announced it was launching an iPlayer rival I could barely hear the words over the onrushing sound of catastrophic failure. If you listen closely, you can hear it too…. Huuuluuu, Huuuluuu, Hulu.
Having used Hulu, I can testify that it’s brilliant and now its flame-filled eyes of domination are on the UK. If the whispers are true it’ll stride into the UK next month, laughing maniacally and kicking its competitors in the crotch, I’d imagine. It’s going to be a bloodbath and if I were Microsoft I’d take Windows 7 and Office 2010 and hunker down in my fortress made of £100 notes. Instead it’s tying itself to the tracks. Unfortunately, stubbornness has never derailed a freight train.
So, that’s that. What really baffles me about MSN Video Player (yes, beyond its very existence) is that Microsoft’s chosen to roll it out on Flash. That’s Adobe’s Flash. That’s Adobe, the next-door-neighbour with the bigger garden, prettier wife and stranglehold on the internet. Microsoft’s been trying to unseat Flash with Silverlight for the last couple of years, ushering developers towards the platform with big smiles and over-elaborate tech demos. And now, confronted by one of its biggest web rollouts for years, it expresses its confidence in Silverlight by sidling into its rivals garden and groping his wife.
I was so perturbed by this I rang up the Microsoft press office and asked why they’d decided not to launch on Silverlight. After some scurrying around, somebody clearly cracked open the can of random PR excuses and pulled forth the following cracker:
We are launching MSN Video Player in pilot form and it is based on existing technology… We are very impressed by Silverlight’s capability and look forward to extending the way it is used to enhance the MSN Video Player experience in the medium term.
Disregarding the fact that it never gets anywhere near answering the question, can somebody explain how Silverlight is not an “existing technology”. And if it’s not, then what is it? Tomorrow’s technology, yesterday’s technology, a week last Thursday’s technology?
There’s also something slightly off about claiming “we are very impressed by Silverlight’s capability” and “extending the way it is used” and “medium term”. Reading it again, it’s almost as if the entire sentence was assembled from stock phrases found on Microsoft’s giant wall of generalisations.
And I couldn’t slink off without leaving you with the following nugget further down in the statement.
MSN Video Player is launching as a pilot to allow it to evolve throughout the pilot period to reflect user requirements within the UK.
What…?
Tags: Flash, Microsoft, silverlight
Posted in: Newsdesk
Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
8 Responses to “ Silverlight not so Flash for Microsoft ”
Leave a Reply
Authors
- Barry Collins
- Chris Brennan
- Christine Horton
- Darien Graham-Smith
- Dave Stevenson
- Davey Winder
- David Bayon
- David Fearon
- Ewen Rankin
- Ian Devlin
- Jon Honeyball
- Jonathan Bray
- Kevin Partner
- Mike Jennings
- Nicole Kobie
- Sasha Muller
- Steve Cassidy
- Stewart Mitchell
- Stuart Turton
- Tim Danton
- Tom Arah
Categories
- About the bloggers
- Android App of the Week
- cloud computing
- Green
- Hardware
- How To
- iPhone App of the Week
- Just in
- Microsoft Office 2010
- Newsdesk
- Online business
- Random
- Rant
- Real World Computing
- Software
- View from the Labs
- Windows 7
- Windows 8
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
advertisement



July 30th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I believe it translates to something like:
“While we’d really like to use Silverlight we haven’t really got much experience deploying it this type of environment, and because we’d like to rush this project out of the door quite quickly, we thought we’d use the tried and tested method. We’d like to state that it has nothing to do with the fact that we poached the bloke from the BBC who’s already done a nifty job with this type of thing. It should also avoid any knocks on the door from the EC, should opera go crying to them again. We may tart the interface up with some Silverlight at a later date.”
and
“We haven’t a clue what we’re doing, but we hope we get enough feedback from the community at large to give us an idea what we should have done in the first place”
July 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
It’s plausible… backend workflows are an underconsidered aspect of debates about clientside video. Last year the BBC Internet blog had a strong description of the work required before a video is served:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_iplayer_on_iphone_behind_t.html
And here’s a description of the technical workflows behind video for the Beijing Olympics:
http://www.streamingmedia.com/r/printerfriendly.asp?id=10405
That’s my guess of what “existing technology” conveys… they’re already set up to produce video in a certain way, and changing those backstage workflows is not an insignificant bit of work.
(btw, Adobe does have a garden, but I don’t think it can have a wife.
jd/adobe
July 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Well, the short answer is that Silverligt has a long way to go before catching up with FLV. Besides, video is only one aspect–SL version 3 offers a microscopic fraction of the functionality of the Flash Platform. That said, hopefully some competition will keep Adobe innovative
July 30th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“SL version 3 offers a microscopic fraction of the functionality of the Flash Platform”
Oh really? you’ll have to let me know what large chunk of Flash it misses out on
July 30th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
oh and before you answer, check out this site
http://www.shinedraw.com/flash-vs-silverlight-gallery/
Many many comparisons and Silverlight holds it’s own. This was based on Silverlight 2.
I particularly like the one where Flash achieves 64 frames per second compared with Silverlight’s 94 fps.
I dislike misinformed comments
August 1st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
It’s actually a very clever move….
Microsoft gets all the new (Flash-happy) visitors to its site, and are suitably hooked on the site. Then X months later they simply say we are enhancing our site with Silverlight so download this harmless little add-in. Then they just have managed to get a large chunk of the population over to Silverlight.
Not a bad approach.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:10 am
I’m curious, does Silverlight offer video card accelerated video? Because that’s the major issue with Flash – playing Hulu/iplayer etc on a slower machine in full screen is a real pain and uses up 100% while the video card takes a nap.
December 5th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I discovered recently Skydur.com – a little proxy, unfortunatelly not free. I wish it is free but it’s not so expensive neither – just about $5 bucks per month. I can now access all web sites again from China – youtube, twitter, facebook and hulu. Skydur is very fast and works on Windows, Mac and Linux – check it out here – Skydur.com – you won’t be disappointed. Believe me I tried dozens of free proxy programs and noone worked as advertised.