OSNews

I agree with you. On the other hand, Sun Microsystem's got a new "technology" under the umbrella that it is _said_ as the next Flash...

let's see....

What, this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F3_%28language%29

Unless it has instant, non browser locking startup time they shouldn't even bother.

Cool, I just signed up for Chris Oliver's JavaOne session on F3.

I remember seeing this F3 stuff a while back on here. When looking at all the sessions available F3 didn't ring a bell.

Microsoft is still addressing the web-app stuff. I assume they'll talk more about it at Mix 07. The NAB conference would naturally be more interested in just the media stuff. From what I've read, the full announcment will be at Mix 07, which takes place at the end of this month.

The "EXPERIENCE SILVERLIGHT" section at the bottom of http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight has some web-app demos.

Today, I've seen some pretty good demo vids showing HD video, web interactivity, and cross platform (including Mac, Safari, Firefox) capabilities:
http://www.beet.tv/2007/04/microsoft_unvei.html

http://on10.net/Blogs/tina/out-with-wpfe-in-with-microsoft-silverli...

Calling QuickTime a "piece of needless malware" is to seriously misunderstand the importance of QuickTime to the media industry. Oh, and it makes you sound completely misinformed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicktime

I suggest you read that... you may learn a thing or two.

It's pretty obvious that he was referring to the QuickTime player. Or at least it should be obvious if you've ever had the misfortune to use the laughably-inept Windows version.

Of course, it's probably not completely accurate to refer to even the QT player as "malware." Malware tends to be invasive, set itself to launch on startup without permission, changes configuration settings without warning, spams users with unwanted onscreen advertisements, etc. Thankfully, the QuickTime player doesn't do any of that kind of stuff.

... and since it's said to be cross-platform: thanks for introducing DRM to Linux!

Windows and Mac OS X

cross-platform in the microsoft world

Windows and Mac OS X

cross-platform in the microsoft world

Actually I think in Microsoft terms this is already called "platform independent"

cross-platform is used to refer to software that is available on Windows and Windows/Embedded

"Ah-hah!

Now you've caught sight of my cunning plan..." --Bill Gates

"You wouldn't know a subtle plan if it painted itself purple and danced naked on top of a harsichord while singing 'subtle plans are here again.'" -Blackadder

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Edited 2007-04-17 18:23

How long will it be until you see "This page requires the Silverlight plugin from Microsoft" And this plugin will be Windows only and require Internet Explorer.

However long it takes, I only hope it takes a fraction as long for folks to reject this and send a message that content can be obtained in other ways. The Sheeple will not pander to lock in forever. You heard it here first. hehe

There is a Firefox plugin available for months. Although I still hope this technology won't be widely adopted, I simply don't trust MS anymore when it comes to web.

you are preaching ot the choir Rev.....

+5 Wise

They say it will work on MacOS X and Windows browsers No offical word on Linux/Unix support though.

Flash isn't exactly great on Linux/UNIX either though. It's a version behind the latest and buggy at that

Flash isn't exactly great on Linux/UNIX either though. It's a version behind the latest

Currently not true. It has been in the times before Adobe bought Macromedia.
Adobe has probably more Unix Know-How than Macromedia or more customers deploying it.

"

"

Just checked and you're right, however that's only happened in the last 3 months and even then it's only for Mozilla/FF. Plus Solaris is still only on version 7.

Personally I think there is a need for an open source alternative to Flash/Silverlight as neither of them really address that well the internets need for a reliable, platform-independent vector graphics mark-up standard.

Microsoft's VC-1 site (the format that Silverlight concentrates on) states that they developed VC-1 in conjunction with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. The article lists about a dozen companies that are using it, as well as its support in HD DVD and Blu-Ray.

The published standard is $300, and can be purchased in the site I linked below. I'd say there's more than a chance that it'll be supported by other media players; with all the companies supporting it, I think it's probable you'll be able to play them on more than one player.

http://store.smpte.org/product-p/smpte%20421m-2006.htm

Edited 2007-04-16 23:54

This is probably wishful thinking, but you think there's any chance that other media players will play these files?

Microsoft doesn't need other players to play their Silverlight format. They can just push the plugin into IE with their software update mechanism and before you know it people will be using it. It should be interesting to see if this is how they roll it out. I'm putting money on it that it is a 'suggested' update.

I wouldn't be suprised that once they get people using Silverlight they could stop including the Flash plugin in IE and crush yet another competitive media format. The abusive power from a monopoly is a force to be reckoned with.

Edited 2007-04-17 13:11

<sarcasm>
Hey...It means Home Basic AND Home Ultimate. Maybe Server as well, they haven't decided.

</sarcasm>

Correction, for Microsoft crossplatform generally means:
* It works perfectly on MS Windows with Microsoft technologies.
* It *may* work (take your chances) on MS Windows with non-Microsoft technologies.
* Mac is supported, but not as well as MS Windows and support generally lags behind MS Windows support.
* Linux is tolerated (if someone else creates a compatibility project), though not supported ("accidents " can happen to the API).

Edited 2007-04-16 23:20

I am afraid I have to agree. They probably ment browser by platform, not OS. Many people didn't like Flash. MS might have success with this.

Haha, again OSnews readers strike, 5 points on argument that can be proved false by READING the actual article. Keep this up peeps slashdot is just little a head of you.

Since flash is silverlight's biggest competitor, and not an operating system, since flash is cross-platform, it would be in Microsoft's best interest to have os parity to flash.

Though, I'd call cross-platform support for silverlight a joke currently, without Linux support.

At least, that's the plan.

If that were the plan, wouldn't they be misserved by making Silverlight usable with Safari and Firefox?

There's an interesting quote on the Microsoft website: "[Microsoft makes] more software for the Mac than anyone other than Apple itself." Much as I don't like it, it looks like this is another 'baby step' towards being in that same position with Linux.

A few weeks ago, someone here (don't know who, there's no 'search comment' feature for non-paying users) commented that Microsoft should be moving towards a common cross-platform business, using their ability to create APIs and IDEs to sell Microsoft software to people regardless of OS. By putting out another Linux product, it looks like could be going in that direction...

If that were the plan, wouldn't they be misserved by making Silverlight usable with Safari and Firefox?

You would think so, but MS's embrace/extend/extinguish strategy works slightly different than that.

A few weeks ago, someone here (don't know who, there's no 'search comment' feature for non-paying users) commented that Microsoft should be moving towards a common cross-platform business, using their ability to create APIs and IDEs to sell Microsoft software to people regardless of OS. By putting out another Linux product, it looks like could be going in that direction...

That would be interesting (and logical) but I dont see that happening with Gates/Ballmer in control of that company.

There's an interesting quote on the Microsoft website: "[Microsoft makes] more software for the Mac than anyone other than Apple itself.

Let's see, there is the Office suite and ... ?! I'd venture to say that many Mac ISVs make more than 1 product for the Mac. They used to have a few more products for the Mac, but they are all discontinued one after another.

Even if you count the components of the Office suite as separate products, Adobe still makes more applications for the Mac than Microsoft.

It's actually probably more in terms of sales rather than applications. They did make more products at one point, but it was just no longer worth it for them once Apple started producing its own fundamental apps, like a good mailer and browser.

I think they mean by volume.

Why subvert HTML? This is a vector graphics user interface markup language that we're talking about here, not a light document markup standard.

Where I see a "subversion" of HTML by Silverlight is when it starts to compete with Flash to see who can create the largest website with an all-vector markup, as is the standard with, say, music band websites.

The problem with that is that, with so much concentration on graphics, we'll have more of those sites which are damn near impossible to navigate with your browser's "Back"/"Forward" buttons.

Plus, if there's any evidence of Microsoft spiting Desktop Linux (not server Linux) users, then this might be the first shot.

I'm hoping that SVG doesn't turn out exactly like Flash or Silverlight in their utter denial of the existence of a "navigational-through-documents" web browser.

"The web isn't a big user interface. It's a series of (text) links!"

Nothing will subvert HTML. IT is too easy to write, too light and too ubiquitous to get rid of.

MS's product is going after the rich UI market on web pages... providing a highly interactive interface that is competitive with flash and ajax toolkits will be beneficial. If silverlight can beat flash in its features and platform ubiquity, then people will start using sliverlight toolkits to make UIs rather than Flash.

Personally, I think that using flash applets for specific site functions like streaming media, file uploading, etc. is as far as you should go with a flash UI. Too much and you create an unusable (but pretty) experience.

I really doubt that's the plan, in the early 90's, sure, it would be the plan, but MS is not as free to act that way anymore, not with the EU breathing down their necks

Activex was insecure, but it is used in Windows. It is a form of RPC. I think that some key system libraries are just wrappers around Activex components. It is a rather strange idea to let an OS communicate with itself via RPCs, which are supposed to be in higher layers. I believe that it is causing some problems to Wine developers.

ActiveX is COM, which is built-on, but does not always use RPC. COM isn't always that easy to understand, but it's not rocket science and the fact that WINE developers are having trouble implementing it is interesting to me....

It is pretty smart to use a RPC-like system which forces separation of interfaces from implementations in a large OS like Windows. This is what all of the Windows scripting interfaces are based on too, since the RPC interfaces are callable generically.

If Firefox's support is via an extention then that would make Silverlight OS independent (including Linux) providing that users are browsing with Firefox

You probably think of Mozilla JavaScript + XML scripting. I think that this kind of stuff requires some native code components.

You missed another good quote: "…ensuring compatibility with the millions of hours of content already available on the Web."

Anyone smell OfficeOpenXML style propaganda?

(They fail to realise, if there are millions of hours of WMVs on the Internet, why would anyone transfer them into a less-supported container format ?!?)

Good point!
"... why would anyone transfer them into a less-supported container format ?!?)"
Here is why:Microsoft wants to enforce DRM on all available "surfaces" (note MS-coined new term for what we usually call platform/Operating System )
MS OS-es are still around 90% marketshare.Add to that
new "surfaces" such Zune,XBox,mobile devices and what not and that's really impresive surface exposured to content delivery systems with great potencial in providing new stream of revenues for Microsoft.
The only problem for Microsoft would be to standardize media format ,make it prevalent form of content delivery and that's where the (DRM) string is going to be attached to an existing pool of archived WMV works.
If your "surface" ( read: operating system or appliance) does not support new standard you're practically barred from accessing DRM-ized content.
The real problem is not the media format itself but the
way Microsoft is trying to make it standard taking advantage of its monopol.

"Microsoft is calling it 'cross platform' because it can be run from an APACHE SERVER."

I'm pretty sure they say it since it runs on Mac's.

"Microsoft has FOOLED OSnews into calling it cross platform. "

I think you mean eweek, not osnews.

{However, this plugin cannot be used in any web browser running under linux.

"It supports playback of WMV files on both PC and Macintosh"}

Are you sure? I just watched a number of "Siverlight" presentations, including one on a Microsoft site, using Firefox running on Kubuntu Feisty.

The VC-1 video codec is supported by the ffmpeg/libavcodec library of codecs for Linux.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libavcodec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffmpeg

It all works for me.

It also supports Firefox and safari, sounds fairly cross platform to me. If Linux dev's pay the 300 bucks for the spec, they can write a player for Linux, and then it's truly cross platform. 300 bucks is nothing.

{they can write a player for Linux}

They already have.

"

"

I think $300 is a massive amount given that most other web technologies' specs are free to view via the W3C (or other sources).

The impression I get is the only reason the specs are available to buy from Microsoft is so they can't be accused for breaking anti-trust laws (et al).

This to me is hardly any better.
MS still control the technology plus rather than going open source or investing time porting Silverlight on to other platforms, developers are paying MS for the 'privlage' to render Silverlight on their OS/webbrowser.

300 dollars is nothing, feel free to disagree, but regardless why MS has released the specs, they have, and that is enough to ensure it will be usable on Linux. and the player will be Opensource. Better than a binary blob from Adobe.

This is rather optimistic. I haven't read the licence of the spec, however I am quite confident that it will not allow a Free software implementation fully compatible to Microsoft's own player.

If OSS devs really wanted to create a Linux version, they could easily gather $300. Are you really saying that one couldn't get 300 donations of $1 each instantly? It's ideology that prevents OSS devs from doing this, not cash.

And once some OSS dev does pay the $300, you can be sure that he'll "set the information free" and put the specs on the web for all to download anyway.

The idea might be good. But the way MS plans to implement it probably won't.

Excuse my skepticism, so many years of embrace/extend/extenguish can make you suspicious. Plus I still don't see what advantage this thing has over the currently existing technologies.