Related
My concern is that novice users will turn their back to a website which asks them to install Silverlight.
One of the reasons I think they might be scared of installing Silverlight is because they are not aware of what Silverlight actually is.
What's your take on this?
You can see the website riastats.com for information on install base, the main thing is if Silverlight gives an advantage such as the NBC Olympics coverage in United States uses Silverlight because of the Smooth Streaming technology plus the ablity to have a Live DVR where live streams can be "rewound" - all these features are probably better supported by Silverlight has the Client and Server ends can be well integrated (with Microsoft solutions).
I may be a little biased as I am a Silverlight developer, but with a less than 5MB download for runtime, that helps sell it more - especially as it may be a better alternative than the Flex download for Flash if this is required to create a solution that would have worked in Silverlight as it is a larger download.
Check out the silverlight.net showcase you'll see who and where it is being used - you can then make your decision based on this - rather than a few opinions (including mine!).
Well Silverlight is installed on about 50% of pc's now. So it depends on your market. Normal web users (ie. non-developers) tend to install anything you prompt them to if you can clearly and succinctly give them a compelling reason to run your application.
It doesn't tend to matter outside of the work place environments if you use silverlight or flash. What's more important is that your application will solve a problem the user has, and you can communicate that well.
They do not know what is is, marketshare is around 40%. I'd say it's not ready if you want to reach everyone.
However if Flash or javascript is not an option, give a firsttime visitor window informing your clients about silverlight.
I think you're going to have a lot of users on the public internet that don't have it installed. If you're really going for a mass-market site, and you aren't doing a crazy amount of media-rich type content, I would go with something like JQuery to make your Javascript easy and cross-platform.
I know this question has been asked a million times in various ways by different businesses, but I'm wondering the community's opinion on it [There's this question, but in the fast-moving world of tech, a year is a long time]. For hypotheoretical purposes, let's consider a website where users can watch videos, a la YouTube, Hulu, etc. (actually, it's an on-demand transcoding solution, but close enough). The website could deployed:
Using HTML, JavaScript, and HTML5's <video> tag
Using HTML, JavaScript and Flash (like most are right now)
Using HTML, JavaScript and Silverlight just for the video player
Using Silverlight for navigation, creating a rich all-Silverlight experience
(Let's assume, again hypoteoretically, that the all-Silverlight version is not as annoying as most all-Flash pages are today, but instead provides an experience similar to a desktop application)
Which way would be able to reach a large percentage of the population? How would people feel about having to install Silverlight to view a site -- how much would they want to see the content to make them click the install button? What if a user is browsing the site at the library on on another public computer with limited bandwidth, possibly using older hardware and with an unprivileged user account -- how easy would it be for them to install the Silverlight runtime?
I really want to use Silverlight since I like its' model (I've been using it for an internal app at work, and I think it's an excellent platform), however I'm afraid that for a public site, a large percentage of users would not be able to view the site, then Flash may be better option.
EDIT:
Well, the idea is to have a player where users can access videos on their home PCs from the web. So the users usually won't be using a home PC -- they'll be using work PCs, friend's PCs, public PCs, etc. That's why I'm worried about the security/install privileges issue.
Start with what each of technologies can do for you and match that against your requirements re: content delivery. Assuming each is just as good as the other for the purpose at hand, and that you have the requisite skills in each or dont mind learning them to produce your content, then dont see player distribution as a problem.
Users not having the priviledges to install the player should it be absent would generally be considered an edge case. If your site is specifically targeting a user group to which this is more likely to apply then obviously it requires deeper consideration but at the end of the day you're always going to have a percentage of surfers who cant do something, or use something, for some reason. In this case it's likely a small percentage and good design dictates some form of graceful degradation regardless of the technology being deployed.
Your other questions re: user preferences is difficult to gauge. Here is a list of sites that clearly dont think its an issue. You'd have to extrapolate the adoption rate numbers but this link, albeit to an MS blog entry, suggests the adoption rate is high, especially considering Silverlights relatively short life.
You also have to factor in that it's an MS technology so you're going to benefit from Windows Update, etc and the strength of the MS marketing machine.
Recommendation: Go for it. The more the merrier.
..
Richard
This line is the decider for me:
I really want to use Silverlight since I like its' model
If you like Silverlight enough to really want to use it, go for it. The UI will be as useful or as annoying as you make it, so Flash has nothing intrinsic over Silverlight there. It comes down to whether Silverlight will do what you want it to.
HTML5 and its suite of technologies are a far better fit at this level. I went to a Microsoft confrence recently and the HTML5 talks where all booked out and the Silverlight talks had hardly any attendees. You can get a web application to almost have a normal application experience with JQuery ajax and HTML5.
Due it is an MS technology, Silverlight is successful for its short life, like Bing (i believe if it wasn't developed by MS most people wouldn't even know its name). But i would not use it for a website actually, most people dont want to install new things unless they have to. And if your site does not have a content that they will desire, they can go away from your site. I'm a Java developer but i dont use JavaFX for web apps, because most user machines have Flash installed it is a better choice for accessibility reasons. Silverlight is a new field for MS but Flash is around for years and it's one of the main focuses of Adobe.
We are launching a site that is media heavy and looking at using silverlight, since most of our video library is in wmv and from what i understand flash serving still costs a couple bucks.
Is silverlight really adopted out there, I know i use it as well as a bunch of developers for internal apps but as far as a web application is it ready to go, i went through a mac install with safari and had to restart my whole browser to install it, not exactly a great user experience. I also noticed that MS doesnt even use it for http://video.msn.com and also the few sites that have launched get crazy MAC people crying bloody murder , read http://www.itwriting.com/blog/641-mac-users-refusing-to-install-silverlight.html where one New York Times reader said "Nope. Not going to use anything from Microsoft. If reading the NYT requires MS products then, for this reader, goodbye NYT." when asked to install silverlight for NYT site. Tech wise moving forward I like Silverlight and some of the things i can do from a framework / wpf perspective and want to move ahead with it just not sure it's the out there enough yet.
Just wondering what people think out there
I think that if you have a user base that refuses to upgrade from Internet Explorer 6, good luck with getting anything else adopted, including Silverlight.
The thing can be installed more or less automatically just like Flash, for crying out loud. How difficult could it be?
The argument up to now has been, "Flash is already installed on most computers, so it already has high adoption." But that's a chicken and egg problem. How did Flash get adopted in the first place?
The NYT reader just has a prejudice. Clearly he believes that Microsoft is the evil empire. There's really nothing you can do about that. The real question is, how prevalent is this attitude? Certainly it will be common among the Linux/open source crowd, but it's hard for me to believe that this attitude would be prevalent among the average user. If anything, the Microsoft name is a warm and fuzzy for them.
I personally think Silverlight will pick up pace on business applications just because it's much programmer friendly and the fact that you can program it in .NET languages means it is much easier to reuse and maintain your business logic.
However, in terms of consumer application I don't think it can beat Flash, who's got a much larger install base and already used by most major companies. Also, don't forget HTML5, which now has integrated video element supported by major browsers including Firefox, Chrome and Safari.
Despite codec arguments, it is another strong contender, which will squeeze Silverlight's market share even further.
As a user and as a web developer I like sticking to the bare minimum. Like it or not Flash has pretty much become the standard platform for rich media on the internet. Everyone I know has flash to use videos from common sources like You Tube.
Since money seems to be an issue I might suggest Flowplayer, an open source Flash video player. Currently it only supports mpg, mov, and avi, but it's fairly easy to convert wmv to other formats using open source tools.
Here is Flowplayer:
http://flowplayer.org/v2/player/index.html
Here are some simple instructions for converting video:
http://flowplayer.org/v2/tutorials/my-movies.html
The only major sites using silverlight are ones that microsoft either owns, or has paid to use it, and most of the ones that they paid for switched back to flash. The version number may be approaching 3.0, but it is still a very new and immature platform that is not as widely installed as flash (which is pushing 97% of all browsers).
If you are talking wmv vs silverlight, I would go silverlight. If you are talking flash vs silverlight, I would say flash hands down. If you want to be forward thinking, serve stuff up with the HTML <video> tag, with flash as a fallback.
I remember that MLB went from showing those games from silverlight back to flash due to a few issues that didn't get resolve. It work pretty well on the Olympics, but beyond that I can't say how good or bad it is. Do you have any idea what percentage of users have Silverlight installed for their browsers? That might be something to look at.
I've heard that desktop Silverlight penetration is around 30%. Flash is somewhere north of 95%.
Going with Flash seems the easy decision now. I can certainly imagine a lot of Mac users seeing the "install Silverlight" message and saying, "Ick! No!"
In the long run, probably most Windows PCs will have Silverlight. Diehard Mac fans may never install it.
Meanwhile, I've seen more and more people who don't install Java, and who just pass on any site that says to install Java.
Adobe's only weakness now is mobile. They seem to have desktop locked up tight.
Now with Silverlight 3 (offline, out of browser stuff), what are the main differences between the two technologies?
There are some significant differences right now in the Beta, no idea if these will still be differences in the release version.
There is no way to hide the window chrome in Silverlight OOB.
No ability to create a notification tray icon.
Air apps can be multi-window, Silverlight OOB cannot.
Air apps have more access to the system, Silverlight apps are sandboxed.
There are differences in the install and update procedures, not sure of al of the details.
AIR gives you access to the file system and a SQLite db. SL3 only lets you write to the file system with user interaction (a Save As dialog) and doesn't have any support for a DB in Isolated storage or on disk.
SLOOB runs in a sandbox still, so you're limited to the same cross-domain issues as a Silverlight app running in the browser.
It's a three way war: Adobe AIR, MS Silverlight and Mozilla Prism.
Read this blog-post and this article. A quote from the second article:
Silverlight is the clear winner in terms of power, but as one of my colleagues pointed out the other day does it matter? His point was that Flash has an incredible penetration rate. According to Adobe it’s in the 99% range. When considering rolling out a new product that requires a plug-in why introduce another barrier to adoption?
and another one from the second:
We then asked of those who answered yes which formats they use. Unsurprisingly, given how long it has been available, Flash leads with 61% of respondents. More surprising was Silverlight’s very small market share of a little over 2%, essentially the same as that of the Real format. Quicktime did surprisingly well, at just under 20%.
As for VOIP support in SL read this.
Read up on Prism here.
In addition to what Dave said, Silverlight seems to be missing device support (microphone and web cam).
One thing I'd like to point out, that nobody else has mentioned is (and I'm not picking favorites when I say this, as we use Air/Flex for a project at my job):
Adobe doesn't have the talent needed to create quality run times and IDEs for developers. Their ideas are fine, it's the execution of those ideas that I doubt. I think we can all agree that Visual Studio is light years ahead of any IDE out there. Quality wise I'd even go as far as to say that VS2005 is better made than anything on the market (it's now 2011) 6yrs later.
If you feel Flex/Air meets your needs better, my all means, go with it. But if feel either platform will give you what you want, I'd say Silverlight wins every time. It's more mature, it's substantially more stable.
Our biggest headache for our commercial app is that Air does not managed garbage collection well, for the past year and a half, our app has suffered from slowdown, the only resolution is to do a nightly reboot on a kiosk because we nest objects inside objects, once you hit the 3rd nesting, it seems Air cannot flush those objects correctly, Adobe is will aware of it, and considering how much time has passed and all the newer versions, Adobe has no resolution. That is the sign of poor run times and Adobe developers who just aren't very good. Despite the fact people love to bash MS, these days their platforms are pretty reliable is reliable overall, especially their .NET runtimes. Adobe feels like Microsoft circa 1997, they're years away from offering reliable solutions.
PS: I'm sure a couple koolaid drinking Adobe devs will be down voting this answer.
Assuming only minor changes are necessary to run a Silverlight app on the desktop, the differences are in implementation details. Silverlight is a .NET-space framework based on WPF. Flash/Flex/AIR are proprietary Adobe products based on ActionScript.
In terms of capability, they seem to be roughly equal with complementary strenghts and weaknesses. Example: SL3 will have GPU and pixel shader support. The latest Flash as Inverse Kinematics. Different strokes, etc.
From the users standpoint I like the Silverlight installation process a lot more... Specially on the Mac - Air app installation is unnatural (to many clicks and processbars) but oneclick Silverlight install is nice :)
I've been developing with XHTML, CSS and Javascript for about 4 years now.
I love it a lot and hate it a little. I've looked into Flash and Silverlight a bit, but as a developer, I'm not too keen on them.
One reason is that they lock you into a vendor and generally, into using that vendor's tools. E.g. Adobe Flash or Microsoft Visual Studio, etc.
Also, Silverlight seems to mix content, layout/styling and behavior and into a single markup language, whereas I like the XHTML way of separating them out in code, but bringing them together in the user's web browser.
I also applaud the usability of the web, e.g. back button, hyperlinks, etc. which are set-in-stone standards that people are used to dealing with.
However, I'm seeing a lot of industry support for Silverlight and Flash. As far as .NET Developer jobs, I'm seeing less jobs for front-end/.NET developers and more jobs for Silverlight/.NET developers.
Will HTML developers still be employable in the future, or should I consider moving to a proprietary platform such as Silverlight?
While Flash/Silverlight skills may be worth developing, I think you will find that general web development skills will still be required for some years to come. Mobile apps in particular seem to place more emphasis on good, basic web design without dependence on plugins and or client-side code. Eventually, I would expect web standards to evolve to subsume the best (or at least most used) features of proprietary plugins. The web, at least, seems to be a place where people tend to favor solutions that maintain independence over lock-in to specific vendor technologies.
No, I think that idea will never fully catch on. The problem is really about the platform being developed on.
Look at how accessible the web is. Almost any machine can get on the web. My phone, my iPod, my laptop, my 11 year old PII machine, my gaming tower, all can access the same web.
The devices I have are not the limit to what can reach the web either. I think just about every gaming platform and cell phone can get on the web, as well as thin terminals running any OS imaginable. I'm sure there are others also.
The big thing looks like it's going to be the mobile market in the next few years. Some mobile devices can run flash, but it isn't used much because of the poor support & performance. The only way that the mobile web can work is by using pure standards based solutions, because that's really the only baseline that can be trusted to exist.
No matter what proprietary technologies come out, I can always rely on the fact that my XHTML pages will still render successfully on whatever device decides to access it. The same can't be said for flash or silverlight.
At the same time, I can also guarantee you that there will be a bigger market for flash and silverlight because the web is becoming more "media rich" in some niche markets (YouTube, Adobe Air, Hulu, Google Gears, etc. to name a few examples). There will absolutely be a market for it, but I wouldn't say it will defeat XHTML and web standards because the web is constantly being redefined.
No matter how much Flash or Silverlight try to take on, the technology will move so fast that the only baseline that I think will remain will be standards like XHTML and CSS.
Flash has been around for years and still hasn't taken over. I think that is one good example of how hard it is to replace XHTML.
Go for server-side development of any kind, but I wouldn't become a Silverlight or Flash specialist.
<CrystalBallMode>
To be honest I can't see it happening. Other than the reasons mentioned by tvanfosson and DanHerbert, the XHTML + CSS + JS stack just grew mature enough so that things like AJAX and jQuery make pretty much all the lightweight client side stuff easy with these tools (as opposed to things like streaming video, heavy computations or sockets etc.)
Common technological inertia will just guarantee that the existing things will stay around. People are much more likely to use something that has been around for a while and has been extended to meet the latest requirements than to use something totally new. Of course there are great paradigm shifts every now and then like the native to managed code transition but I don't see that happening with Flash or Silverlight.
</CrystalBallMode>
My hope is that what comes out of all of this is a new standardized web platform truly suited to building the web applications that people want to see with tools that developers really want to use. I see all of the effort going to trying to shoehorn these legacy web technologies into the "Web 2.0" model and I just wish that this effort could go towards making a truly revolutionary "Web v.Next".
Don't get me wrong, I really like what jQuery is doing to make Javascript client code easier, but it's still Javascript and my personal preference is to work with strongly typed languages with productive development tools.
In the meantime, I think tools like Silverlight and Flash have a lot to offer and help you do things more easily in some cases than in other web technologies, and there are some things you simply can't do any other way. But I don't think Silverlight or Flash or any other technology is the end game, just a step in the right direction.
Consider for a moment that you can manipulate a web page using Javascript, (X)HTML, and CSS with a great deal of overlap in functionality and yet ALL three technologies remain in prominent use today. The reason for this is because all three languages are different tools meant to solve different problems and no one of them can serve as an adequate replacement for the other.
Its the same thing with Flash / Silverlight vs these existing web technologies. In fact, I work in a dev shop that builds Flash based e-learning. One of our current products was originally built to use a purely Flash-based solution for navigation, etc. However, as the product has continued to evolve we have actually moved a lot of the functionality from the Flash-based e-learning module and into regular html pages.
In other words, I don't think that we'll be abandoning the current tools that web developers use any time soon. For the most part I see Flash / Silverlight as additional tools that will solve particular problems better than we were able to solve them previously.
Neither one is going to win out anytime soon. I expect which one is used will depend entirely on the purpose for many years to come.
The reason you're seeing so many job offerings for Silverlight of late is because it's a relatively new technology and just recently gained some momentum.
Though, I do expect Silverlight to make quick work of Flash.
I sure hope so. And yes, I think they will. There will be some development on legacy (XHTML/CSS/JS) apps for re-tuning purposes, but I think there will come a day when new apps are simply not created on those platforms.
Mobile phones are the issue right now. Flash isn't available on many of the major phone models. And their browsers are all over the map. Luckily there's Webkit (iPhone and G1).
If Silverlight makes it to a web platform then it will be a nice viable alternative to the hodgepodge of technologies that are currently in use. FYI, Microsfoft says Silverlight on Android is very possible. On the iPhone, hard to say, Apple is weird about such things.
AOL recently created a RIA version of it's email client in Silverlight. Looks nice and there's no Javascript errors to worry about. From a developer standpoint, that's huge.