Rags to Riches

en route to a “richer” Internet

1. Joel 06.03.08 / 2am

   Bah, like Apple with the Safari in the Quicktime update, but worse. I’ve done so well keeping Silverlight off my machine(s) too.
2. Peter 06.03.08 / 2am

   To be honest Mrinal, I think that was to be expected — I am pleasantly surprised its an optional download and they leave it up to the end user.

   Would be strange if they have this Windows Update distribution opportunity and just ignore it. I actually prefer to see Silverlight with a large install base over broken web experiences.

   In an ideal scenario Silverlight and the Flash Player (and any others) should be fairly ubiquitous and go head to head on features and development workflow. As things stand right now believe Adobe would come out on top with its tooling and designer/developer offering.
3. Mrinal Wadhwa 06.03.08 / 2am

   Yeah, I guess everyone saw it coming .. but it still gives me this yucky feeling in my stomach.
4. Borek 06.03.08 / 3am

   What’s so bad about distributing software via the least intrusive way? Silverlight is going to be used whether you like it or not (see Beijing Olympics, for example) so it’s better when the users have it installed sooner than later.

   Microsoft Update is here for exactly this thing - getting MS stuff seamlessly. I’m OK with that.
5. Ian 06.03.08 / 3am

   This is why I’ve dumped windows and gone for Linux - much as there are a few key applications I miss (itunes) it’s 10 times better for day to day use and a new Linux update won’t force-ably give me new software and reboot my p.c. without asking!
6. Brian 06.03.08 / 3am

   If I remember right, Microsoft SP2 included the Flash 6 player. Sure, at the time Flash 7 was the published player, yet it was included. Heck, I don’t even remember an option at all to skip it. So was that wrong?

   Of course, as a Flash developer, I was delighted that everyone was getting something.

   So, this Silverlight thing really does not bother me at all. If anything, I would like to see Adobe claim foul with this stuff and get the Flash player on the Microsoft Update system.

   In the end, it really does not matter. Even if every win-box comes with Silverlight, it is not going to kill Flash. The only way Silverlight will do that is if people start making killer applications using it.

   So, go make some killer Flash apps instead. Don’t give the people a reason to want to switch.

   Oh, my last thought. At least they don’t automatically check it like Apple did with Safari. Optional installs I can be fine with, assuming that I want to install them - uh no.
7. Ian 06.03.08 / 3am

   Yes, it is/was wrong - as an owner of a computer you have the right to choose what goes on your machine.

   Plus it’s a little naive to think that content alone will dictate the most successful platform, Microsoft have proven several times before that pockets that go multi-million dollars deep are capable of marketing anything (just try opening a 200 page document in word and watch your $4000 machine crawl)
8. Josh 06.03.08 / 4am

   I knew Microsoft would put Silverlight on Windows Update eventually. As someone else said, it’s a good thing. Healthy competition should bring about some interesting advances in RIA technologies. I can’t wait to see what happens.

   In response to Brian’s comment, Flash Player 6 was included with Windows XP because Microsoft used Flash in the product tour.
9. Patrick Logan 06.03.08 / 4am

   In order for it to be a success it still has to not suck and run on more that Winders. MSFT has not been good at either of those objectives.
10. mh 06.03.08 / 5pm

    What they can’t do is update Linux and Apple machines.
    The market share for non Windows PCs is only going to grow (imho) and only a minority of developers will develop windows only content for the browser.
    To be clear - Although Silverlight is a cross platform runtime, it has to get installed cross platform to be taken seriously.
    And if it does then great, i might start using it in 5-10 years.
11. Venal Obscession 06.03.08 / 7pm

    Our org will no longer be putting MS products on any new machines. It’s just too much hassle for negative returns. Get Linux, do the work that is your organizations mission, and forget about that nightmare known as MS.
12. Mrinal Wadhwa 06.03.08 / 8pm

    Thanks for you opinions everyone,

    I agree that an ideal world where every plugin is present on every machine and the decisions we developers have to make are only based on the merit of the technology.. would be great … but this world of RIA isn’t so ideal .. there are several technologies competing and this move by Microsoft doesnt seem fair to me .. I’m tempted to think of Curl .. they have a fairly good technology and their biggest problem, just like Microsoft is adoption .. is this move fair to them?

    Also, pretty much every web company is getting into the business of making browser plugins … Adobe, Microsoft, Sun, Apple, Google, Yahoo .. I’m sure there are many more to come .. so the thought that concerns me is … should all these plugins grow organically or should these companies feel free to use their existing installations on the desktop to boost adoption … to me the second choice is somewhat disconcerting
13. Can’t we just stick with Flash? « Ladgeful 06.03.08 / 10pm

    [...] the world” this time with it’s Adobe Flash rip off ‘Silverlight‘. Apparently all windows users will be forced to download the programme via windows update. Ultimately I’ll take a bet that Silverlight will be failed product in a years time. [...]
14. mick 06.04.08 / 7am

    It is optional update. So what are you complaining about?
15. Mrinal Wadhwa 06.04.08 / 7am

    Mick,

    My previous comment explains my concern.

    Mrinal
16. Fernanda Gomez 06.06.08 / 10am

    That’s one of MS business strategy
17. Scott Barnes 08.22.08 / 9am

    Folks,

    This is fair, we’re playing by the rules and ensuring that our millions of .NET customers whom have asked us for Silverlight for years, get reach with their customers. Whilst it may annoy a few folks whom are in the Adobe community as not being “fair” please keep in mind, for years we shipped Flash (without being optional) inside Windows, to the point where the 98% ubiquity success hailed from this deal.

    We consider Silverlight a viable investment for not only our future, but that of the RIA. As Silverlight has not only finaly provided a mainstream choice, but it’s pushing Adobe into action, which in turn is producing more and more rounds of innovation for you folks.

    This is a positive thing, despite Adobe’s posture about “us vs them”, as in the end, you can do both and I’ve always stated this. There doesn’t have to be one single runtime to rule them all, there can be more than one. As in the end, if you prefer Flex over Silverlight (which is fine, each to their own) then in the end you can feed off the innovation that comes from Adobe as they continue to look for ways to one-up Silverlight.

    I’ve seen more action from Adobe/Macromedia in the last year, than I’ve seen being a community member in the last 10 years.

    why is that bad?

    -
    Scott Barnes
    Rich Platforms Product Manager
    Microsoft.
18. Mrinal Wadhwa 08.22.08 / 7pm

    Scott,

    While I agree with you that Silverlight is driving a lot of innovation in the RIA space and the competition is good for everyone .. I still find this move unfair, my previous comment explains that .. what do you feel about that perspective?

    Mrinal

    P.S: I appreciate that people at Microsoft care to respond to such concerns