none
Microsoft: Our strategy with Silverlight has shifted

Answers

  • Just noticed that on Jesse Libertie's blog he changed his motto from "Silverlight Geek" to "Code to live. Live to code".

    It seems like it is a complete destruction.

    A month ago, Jesse indicated that he wanted to focus more on Windows Phone 7, and I approved it. Me (client) and Jon Galloway (web) are doing the non-WP7 Silverlight content. I also do WPF, and Jon also does ASP.NET MVC.

    To that end, he has been branding his stuff around that, including even his internal signature. Note that he will be focusing on Silverlight on WP7. He's just really excited about that platform.

    Don't read anything into other than Jesse loves Silverlight and is REALLY excited about WP7 and there are two other people on the team (a team of 4) who are really excited about Silverlight :)

    Pete

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:03 AM
  • To the folks saying we threw people under the bus, please make sure you read Mary Jo's original post. That is the sum total of the original information that has been reblogged, copied, pasted, etc. over the course of the past few days. (Also keep in mind that controversy pays the bills for many of these bloggers, as they get paid by the hit.)

    While I agree that the original quotes from BobMu don't accurately portray the entire story, I also think the press, and the blog and twitter communities have blown this way up.

    Three of the things that he explicitly said in the interview (and which were reported - but unfortunately lost in the public reaction to it) were:

    1. Silverlight is very important and strategic to Microsoft.
    2. We’re working hard on the next release of Silverlight, and it will continue to be cross-browser and cross-platform, and run on Windows and Mac.
    3. Silverlight is a core application development platform for Windows, and it’s the development platform for Windows Phone.

    That all said, we're working to make things right. Take BobMu's team.silverlight.net post at face value. There's nothing to hide there, other than a truth that is apparently less interesting than the rumors. :) I think it's fantastic that as a company we've come out in support of an important emerging web standard. In fact, I know we usually get dinged for not doing that. Sure, the standard isn't ready yet, but are we actually being punished for adopting a web standard too early?

    At the same time, we've made a very strong statement for Silverlight. We're continuing to use it, we're continuing to invest in it, we're continuing to support it.

    (As a moderator here, I'm removing the "FU" posts. They may have been amusing for a moment, but they add nothing to the rational discourse and don't belong in a civilized forum. Please continue the discussion, but keep it civil.)

    Pete

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:21 AM

All replies

  • After reading the article, My impression was silverlight is for Media experience and for phone. HTML 5 for apps.

    Friday, October 29, 2010 1:09 PM
  • :-(   I sure don't want to go back to javascript and html...   :-(

    But that seems to be Microsoft's message for web development now...

    Friday, October 29, 2010 1:39 PM
  • I plan on writing a blog article about this, but:

    Silverlight: Windows Phone 7, Windows Tablets (whenever they come out), Media/DRM (HTML 5 will never have this), Client applications, Intranet apps for SharePoint and LOB

    HTML 5: anything cross-browser or iPad/Android related

    There are definitely negatives:

    - slower release cadence

    - community will no doubt stop growing at the pace it was

    - tougher for Microsoft to prioritize new stuff for Silverlight 5

    - CIOs will read the "Silverlight is dead" articles and skip it in favor of HTML 5


    I am curious how this "App Store" nonsense will play out.  Android, Google, BlackBerry, Microsoft, Nokia, Adobe etc. all have app stores.  If HTML 5 is "TRULY" embraced..u don't need that anymore.

    Also in 5 years when we have 3D-type interactive interfaces...think: 3D tennis coach in Total Recal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXbio9XiL8A) or a virtual ticket to a football game where you are like part of the stadium. There is NO WAY that will be delivered with HTML as the spec is coming out...u will need a DirectX/WPF type interface for it.

    Friday, October 29, 2010 1:43 PM
  • I think that Bob Muglia has just killed Silverlight.  It's done.  It's all over. 

    This is because, as Bart Czernicki said in this thread, CIO's will read this and drop or avoid Silverlight starting back whenever this was said.  They will be correct, of course, in doing so since MS no longer considers it the tool for a cross-platform run time.

    I'm really disappointed to hear this news as I have personally put in a great deal of time learning Silverlight and all the rest that goes with it.  The only good I can take from this is that I will never have to implement  the dreadful MVVM.

    Maybe I'll become an IPhone developer.

    Dean Blakely

    Friday, October 29, 2010 4:35 PM
  • The whole thing is just unbelievable.  Yes HTML5 is great and all, but Silverlight has its place.  Steve Jobs pushed two contradictory technologies -- open cross-platform HTML5, and closed iOS apps -- at the same time, and successfully.  Why can't Microsoft do that?

    And where's the tool support for HTML5 development in comparable strength to VS for Silverlight/WPF?

    I agree HTML5 fills a lot of needs that were previously thought to be in the realm of Silverlight and Flash, but HTML5 does not fill all of them, or else it would be hard to argue for iOS apps even with Steve Jobs' genius.

    So what's the Microsoft answer to iOS apps, Android apps, etc?  Silverlight!  At least that should be the case, and IMO Silverlight/C# is a vastly superior technology compared to Android (dubious Java dependency) and iOS (hideous Objective-C).

    Why would Microsoft downplay that at all?  Is this because of in-fighting between Microsoft?  The way I think about this is that Silverlight should own tablet (just as it does WP7), but the OS teams want all tablets to be based on W7.  Without a strong backing, maybe even backstabbing by the IE team, the SL platform has no choice but to retreat to WP7 only.  In my opinion this would be a mistake because Silverlight is really the ideal platform for tablet, more so than Android and iOS, and more so than it is for phone and desktop.  And I would agree that tablet is far more important to Microsoft's survival than most people think.

    Friday, October 29, 2010 7:45 PM
  • Friday, October 29, 2010 11:04 PM
  • Recognizing that Silverlight cannot be a truly universal cross-platform development solution is just stating the obvious given the current ecosystem. That does not mean that Silverlight is not very important. It has the potential to completely change the way in which web applications are developed. The productivity and expressivity that it offers, the set of tools and the power of C# 4.0 create an incredible combination. I was never as happy with any other web development technology as I am with Silverlight. 

    Seeing how Microsoft lets some of these rumors live makes me wonder if some of the high level executive at Ms. realize what kind of weapon Silverlight can be for the company. Ms. always tried very hard to win the hearts of developers and Silverlight may be the absolutely best thing until now. I wonder if the people at high level in the company realize this.

    Saturday, October 30, 2010 3:18 AM
  • I posted a blog post about the top 5 reasons why Microsoft really screwed up here:

    http://silverlighthack.com/post/2010/10/29/PDC-2010-Top-5-Reasons-Why-Microsoft-Completely-Screwed-up-their-web-strategy-with-HTML-5.aspx

    Good blog post Bart, I left a comment.

    Saturday, October 30, 2010 4:46 AM
  • I think that indeed, SL has matured and is no longer being pressed forward at the speed in which it was.  But being on the back burner doesn't mean that it is dead by any means.  While it was on the front-burner, it did get a lot more attention, but like any corporate driven enviroment, there is always just one topic on the top of the list and that has become HTML 5 along with the IE 9.

    So it doesn't surprise me to see the lack of PDC sessions around SL.  Indeed, they really don't have anything to inspire sessions until SL 5 does come out.  But that is OK.  It SL 4 was the big one I needed to be able to create LOB apps on the web. 

    SL on the phone has been so important for the new Windows phone, and around that there has been a great deal of activity.  I think the phone needs to catch up to SL 4 in full, and then maybe SL 5 for both the phone and desktop will come at the same time.  I think that is why the lack of activity on SL 5.

    Greg

     

    Saturday, October 30, 2010 1:24 PM
  • I think that indeed, SL has matured and is no longer being pressed forward at the speed in which it was.  But being on the back burner doesn't mean that it is dead by any means.  While it was on the front-burner, it did get a lot more attention, but like any corporate driven enviroment, there is always just one topic on the top of the list and that has become HTML 5 along with the IE 9.

    So it doesn't surprise me to see the lack of PDC sessions around SL.  Indeed, they really don't have anything to inspire sessions until SL 5 does come out.  But that is OK.  It SL 4 was the big one I needed to be able to create LOB apps on the web. 

    SL on the phone has been so important for the new Windows phone, and around that there has been a great deal of activity.  I think the phone needs to catch up to SL 4 in full, and then maybe SL 5 for both the phone and desktop will come at the same time.  I think that is why the lack of activity on SL 5.

    Greg

    It is okay to not talk about Silverlight in PDC but it is a different story when it is *downplayed* or *de-emphasized*.  Sure, the only thing that was said was "the strategy has shifted", and a lot of commotion are simply conjectures.  But so far all the media articles and forum posts are interpreting this as the demise of Silverlight, and yet there is no one from Microsoft jumping up and down to clarify.  This says a lot about the degree of truth of these speculations.  The longer it takes for MS folks (ideally Scottgu and Bob Muglia) to clarify, the more bleak the outlook of Silverlight would be.

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 12:30 AM
  • Sorry, forum ate my post.

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:23 AM
  • Lets try this again.
     
    It is okay to not talk about Silverlight in PDC but it is a different story when it is *downplayed* or *de-emphasized*.  Sure, the only thing that was said was "the strategy has shifted", and a lot of commotion are simply conjectures.  But so far all the media articles and forum posts are interpreting this as the demise of Silverlight, and yet there is no one from Microsoft jumping up and down to clarify.  This says a lot about the degree of truth of these speculations.  The longer it takes for MS folks (ideally Scottgu and Bob Muglia) to clarify, the more bleak the outlook of Silverlight would be.
     
    1. Scottgu is on paternity leave, I wouldn't expect to hear from him for awhile. Besides,
    2. Scottgu has already answered before PDC happened.
    3. Bob Muglia didn't say anything new, the Silverlight team has been broadcasting the same message for awhile
    4. The only difference was the spin that Mary Jo Foley put on it this time
    5. The Silverlight people on blogs and Twitter have been responding. Mostly, they are puzzled at everyone'e reaction to the article.

    Lets start with what has happened with Silverlight this year. There have been two major releases (Silverlight 4 and WP7) and an important part of Silverlight 4 (WCF RIA Services) released a SP1 beta with a go-live license during the PDC. Compared to most Microsoft products, two major releases in the same year is unheard of. This is not a "dead" platform and, to use a John Galloway tweet, if Silverlight is dead then there sure were a lot of zombies walking around PDC this year.

    Now, lets look at Bob Muglia's quote without the spin from Mary Jo Foley.

    "Silverlight is our development platform for Windows Phone" which is quite the obvious statement.

    Silverlight has "sweet spots" in LOB applications and media. Another obvious statement, LOB applications and media (i.e. Netflix, Olympics, SNF) have always been the bread and butter of Silverlight and that will not be changing. I do not like how Mary Jo spun that statement though, she made it sound dismissive. It made the full statement sound like Bob was saying, "We are moving away from making a flying car, airplanes are the true way to fly, but cars have some sweet spots in roads and highways."

    “But HTML is the only true cross platform solution for everything, including (Apple’s) iOS platform,” which is an obvious statement as well. So, what we learn from that quote is that Microsoft is not delusional and does not think that they can replace HTML with Silverlight as the default platform for creating web sites. I would be worried if that wasn't the case. Look, this should be pretty obvious, but if you are creating a website that doesn't require Silverlight, then you shouldn't be using Silverlight. It is as simple as that. HTML5 has lots of limitations, like you only get 5MB of local storage, and the video tag is pretty limited for anything outside of YouTube. If you can work inside those limitations, then HTML5 is the right platform for you and Microsoft will be ready to help you create that HTML5 application.

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:59 AM
  • Colin,

    If what you said comes officially from Microsoft (or semi-officially, like from Tim Heuer's "personal" blog), a lot of people, yours truly included, will breathe a big sigh of relief.  I agree with all the *rational* argument why Silverlight should not be dead, that HTML5 does not cover all Silverlight territories, etc.  But I deeply dislike the lack of clarification from Microsoft about the Bob Muglia "strategy shift" statement that happened after Day-one keynote, and apparently many did too -- supporters panicked, enemies jump on it.  Over-reaction?  Hope so.

    True, there has been hint about the so-called strategy shift a while back, and I counted the HTML5 push by Dean at the announcement of IE9 one of the turning points (at that time, I was like, ur, did you forget to mention Silverlight, or did you really dislike the Gu that much?).  But it was more about the rise of HTML5 within MS but not the shift of Silverlight.

    Also true that Scottgu was on leave (but he did show up at PDC and tweeted quite about PDC prior to that media sh*tstorm).  This should be an important enough topic for him to pitch in.

    Again also true that there had been subtle hints here and there.  As far back as MIX'10 the focus was on WP7 and nothing much on non-phone Silverlight, at least not at the breakneck pace of previous Silverlight releases.

    I do agree with you about this:

    Look, this should be pretty obvious, but if you are creating a website that doesn't require Silverlight, then you shouldn't be using Silverlight. It is as simple as that.

    Completely agree.  This is perhaps what Bob Muglia meant to say or should have said.  Let's not compare Silverlight to HTML5 in areas where HTML5 could be so much better (cross-platform, low overhead).  I would prefer a distinction be made between webpage and web app, and a clarification that Silverlight will continue to be pushed as a platform for web app.  In fact, I would go as far as saying that Silverlight is the best platform for "app" -- be it web apps, tablet apps, or phone apps -- and webpage is not the same as web app.  It is okay to push HTML5 to the max so that we don't need so many facepalm moment when a Silverlight app takes forever to load only to do something jQuery/Canvas can do and does better.  But say something positive about Silverlight so that the community collectively won't freak out.

    tl;dr: Over-reaction?  Possibly.  Hopefully!  Clarification please.

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:58 AM
  • I wish there were a "coherent" strategy between HTML 5 and Silverlight. 

    Amongst other things that I hate about HTML:

    1. javascript
    2. not being able to catch compile-time type errors in script.
    3. the syntactical inconsistencies in HTML (maybe 5 addresses that).
    4. the complexity of Layout in HTML (maybe 5 will help that).
    5. that CSS isn't itself done in HTML.
    6. the complexity of Asp.Net
    7. having to code a completely different paradigm for the web than for the desktop allowing little to no re-use and sharing.

    In Silverlight, amongst other things, I love:

    1. the ability to use my .Net language of choice (Delphi Prism, which I REALLY like compare to C#).
    2. being able to catch a myriad of stupid mistakes I make like typos, etc. at compile time.
    3. being able to create components, and usercontrols, and the page, and the style, ALL in xaml.
    4. the powerful, small set of layout controls whose syntax is consistent.
    5. the ease and power and flexibility of binding.
    6. the extensibility of appearance offered by styles and templates.
    7. the ability to at least partly share code and xaml between a web version and a desktop version of the app.

    Things I wish SL would do:

    1. take less time to load.
    2. be REALLY cross-platform, like HTML 5 will be (so users can run my stuff on iPad and iPhone for instance)


    It would seem if there were really as much javascript in an HTML app to download as there is .Net code for a SL app, load time will still be a problem.

    So what would be really cool would be if I could create an app in SL and then a post-process (or targeting or something) would output an HTML 5 app. 

    Then I could have the best of both worlds.  I'm hoping that is what the "re-positioning" of SL is.  (But I suspect that has a very slim chance of happening so that is why this whole thing is worrisome).

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 7:37 AM
  • I posted my position on the Silverlight debate at http://www.galasoft.ch/debate. Like Colin, i do not see anything new in the annoucement that was made (minus the spin). Microsoft is backing HTML5, which is a good thing, if they (or Google, or Apple, or Adobe, or...) don't screw things up by fragmenting it even further than it already is. All in all, remember that every time you see the words "dead", "sudden" or "abandon" in a Tweet, then the statement is wrong. Let's stay reasonable.

    Cheers,

    Laurent

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:37 AM
  • Now, lets look at Bob Muglia's quote without the spin from Mary Jo Foley.

    I see more spin in your response as compared to Foley's. You didn't comment on the quote, "our strategy has shifted". What does that mean? What has changed?


    Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:45 AM
  • I posted my position on the Silverlight debate at http://www.galasoft.ch/debate. Like Colin, i do not see anything new in the annoucement that was made (minus the spin). Microsoft is backing HTML5, which is a good thing, if they (or Google, or Apple, or Adobe, or...) don't screw things up by fragmenting it even further than it already is. All in all, remember that every time you see the words "dead", "sudden" or "abandon" in a Tweet, then the statement is wrong. Let's stay reasonable.

    Cheers,

    Laurent

    Laurent, it's statements like that, that's the problem.

    Of course you don't see anything new in the statement, overall, neither do I, but it's the message, not just the words.

    Of course, everybody else must not have something only available to people circling so close to the mother ship, so we're all wrong.  You're so focused on the words, you may be missing the message.

    I think we have the message right, and IMO, it's not the just message, but the way it was delivered.

    This kind of message freezes management and slows adoption of SL at a time that people are questioning WPF, and that threatens XAML in the process.

    It's not news that HTML provides "Reach", that's not news, and with HTML 5, that "Reach" gets combined with "Rich", that's not news either.  However, Microsoft went out of their way to de-emphasize Silverlight to clarify their support for HTML 5.  If they had just declared their love for HTML5, no problem.  So you have a new girlfriend, why in the world are you bringing up the old one?

    Then even if you're going to do that, wouldn't it be wise, maybe even a bit respectful to come to the SL community and let us know before having us read it in the press?

    History is important here. The perception is that Silverlight is taking a back seat, and may possibly be one of the walking dead that Microsoft has so many of. You can ignore that history if you want to, but that message tells a lot of people to stop buying XAML tooling, because WPF has also been dissed, and may be on the way out.

    On a positive note, I think it's premature to declare a winner without a vote Not from Apple, who appears to have replaced Adobe as MS's daddy, but from the end users.  SL developers aren't going to simply roll over, we're going to develop a lot of SL apps, and a lot of HTML 5 apps as well(I'm actually excited about the HTML Websockets).

    Let the market decide, and if MS's faith in SL is so low, turn it over to the open source community, and watch it take off!

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:39 PM
  • BTW, you don't use words like "Shift", when there's nothing new in your statement.

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:51 PM
  • (this goes as reply to this post and the previous). To be clear, I am also not happy with the way that the message was delivered. I feel that the people at PDC deserve more respect than a few sentences thrown to a tech reporter. I already expressed this feeling to Bob Muglia and waiting for an answer, and a statement.

    As for the "shift", the one I see (if you can name it that) is that IE is really going to support HTML5 as a first class citizen, and that makes me happy. I think the word was not very wisely chosen, especially in the circumstances, but in the heat of the moment, "shift happens" :)

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:16 PM
  • So sad .. :(

    What exactly did they expect, VS 2010 + SL4 was just released.. project don't move that fast ... and it was THE release ready for Biz

    So what exactly is the current client desktop story ? Win form/WPF ? .. Running Setup.exe .. AGAIN @?!

    What's the future for C# skills - Server side??

    I tend to agree with trust issue mentioned here:

    http://amazedsaint.blogspot.com/2010/10/silverlight-vs-html-5-debate-dilemma.html

    If Microsoft doesn’t come forward quickly with clarifications some people will be getting fired... starting with Devs.

     

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 3:05 PM
  • (this goes as reply to this post and the previous). To be clear, I am also not happy with the way that the message was delivered. I feel that the people at PDC deserve more respect than a few sentences thrown to a tech reporter. I already expressed this feeling to Bob Muglia and waiting for an answer, and a statement.

    As for the "shift", the one I see (if you can name it that) is that IE is really going to support HTML5 as a first class citizen, and that makes me happy. I think the word was not very wisely chosen, especially in the circumstances, but in the heat of the moment, "shift happens" :)

    Great reply Laurent, we're in total agreement now.

    As I've said on onther blogs, our backend middleware doesn't care what the client is, and will work well with HTML, SL, Java, Flash, you name it types of clients.  I'm loving where the HTML standard is going, because SL isn't the solution for everything.

    What we're really saying is that diplomacy counts, and the diplomacy displayed at PDC left a lot to be desired.  The potential damage by this slip is yet to be determined, as people with no understanding of the technical stuff will make buying, investment, and business direction decisions we won't be able to control.

    It's just a strange thing to do, just when WP7 is trying to gain a foothold in the market, to cast any doubt over it's main development platform.

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 3:14 PM
  • So what exactly is the current client desktop story ? Win form/WPF ? .. Running Setup.exe .. AGAIN @?!

    It was stated at PDC that the client desktop story is that you should be creating desktop applications using Silverlight. If it turns out that you need more functionality then Silverlight provides, then you can move your application over to WPF and deal with the setup problems.

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:43 PM
  • And what if you need web?  Then you are back to HTML/javascript and having duplicate code bases.  Not fun.

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 10:16 PM
  • Correct me if I am wrong... but it wasn't microsoft in the first place that was working on making Silverlight cross platform... It is projects like moonlight that are working in that area.....  So what in this "shift" of policy would actually change that? I haven't heard any word from the mono team that they are losing anything.


    Sunday, October 31, 2010 10:39 PM
  • And what if you need web?  Then you are back to HTML/javascript and having duplicate code bases.  Not fun.

    True, although I think one of the PDC sessions was about solving that very problem. It comes down to a business decision on your part. Do you want to create one website using HTML5 that covers every possible device, or do you want to create best of breed interfaces for the different platforms? Nothing about HTML5 is going to change the fact that an iOS application is going to be the best interface for an iPhone/iPad and Silverlight is going to be the best interface for anything that has a Silverlight client including Windows, WP7, and Linux (if you keep to what Moonlight supports).

    Correct me if I am wrong... but it wasn't microsoft in the first place that was working on making Silverlight cross platform... It is projects like moonlight that are working in that area.....  So what in this "shift" of policy would actually change that? I haven't heard any word from the mono team that they are losing anything.

    This doesn't change anything for Moonlight, the Mono team had Moonlight supporting OOB and full trust even before Microsoft was. They recognized Silverlight for what it really was before anybody else did. Make no mistake, Silverlight is still cross platform, it just will never be universally cross platform like HTML5 is. Like I said before, Microsoft is just stating a fundamental truth here.

    Sunday, October 31, 2010 11:30 PM
  • It's naive to asume that the sum of signals: not having a silverlight session in pdc, "our strategy has shifted" of muglia, and the lack of official response from Microsoft to the "silverlight is dead" massive world reaction are just an accident.
    As someone said this whole thing is a big harm to Silverlight adoption and is going to influence resource realocation in enterprises.

    I think the reason why Microsoft is downplaying Silverlight is to position Azure as a viable cloud computing platform. The market for HTML applications is orders of magnitude bigger than Silverlight apps. Silverlight brings bad publicity to Microsoft as running against the standards, the big role that microsoft was giving to Silverlight was seen as a threat to HTML 5, make people see Azure and any Microsoft technology as closed and not interoperable, old obscure days that we have to left behind.

    What was the message in PDC?
    Microsoft killed Silverlight, has embraced the standards, now is a good citizen. And now we all can see clearly that Azure is the best platform for serving HTML 5 applications for the beautiful web, developed with any technology you can imagin (.net, php, java, ruby, etc.).

    HTML 5 is hype, but who cares, companies go where the money is, and now the money is in the cloud with standards.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 12:09 AM
  • In my article I wrote: http://silverlighthack.com/post/2010/10/29/PDC-2010-Top-5-Reasons-Why-Microsoft-Completely-Screwed-up-their-web-strategy-with-HTML-5.aspx

    Someone posted a great comment: "Not to mention that this announcement really jeopardizes development for Windows Phone 7, just when it needs to take off."

    This is such a great comment, because Microsoft NEEDS Silverlight to make Windows Phone 7 a success.  The more people are interested in Silverlight, the more developers you have on your new phone platform.  Someone could create a great RIA app at work and then leverage those skills and built a killer app for the Windows Phone 7.   It is a REALLY stupid idea to impede Silverlight adoption now.  

    Especially, since Microsoft announced:

    • no new HTML 5 design tools (i.e. Expression Web)
    • no new HTML 5 debugging, developer tools
    • no new HTML 5 extensions into Visual Studio
    • no strategy how Microsoft will use HTML 5 (other than saying they are part of the standards team)
    • no browser that is HTML 5 compatible


    They are shifting to a strategy that they have no tools for and NO browser that supports it that users or corporations can move to.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 12:48 AM
  • This really bugs me. One of the strengths of the silverlight platform is that it's cross platform. Sure HTML5 is fine but it isn't a panacea.

    This was actually Microsoft's argument a few months ago.Only this year in March MS positioned silverlight as an important piece of the puzzle in it's so called 3 screens and a cloud stratergy. Now have they experienced a change of heart? Silverlight should continue to be cross platform and it should compliment HTML5 after all we have to innovate to standardize.

    If MS limits the cross platform reach of silverlight and refuse to implement SL in more platforms (especially in mobile ) . My confidence in silverlight will slowly fade away

    Monday, November 01, 2010 12:49 AM
  • If the message everyone is interpreting, MS is killing Silverlight, is the correct one, then this is a disaster for MS and the MS developer community. It will certainly kill any potential interest in Windows Phone 7 development. If on, the other hand, this is a bad job of communication on MS' part, then they better fix it stat.

    And, as I've stated elswhere: by the same logic that MS is using to essentially kill Silverlight, they could do a few other things. For example:

    1) Stop supporting IIS, since Apache is the only true cross platform solution
    2) Stop supporting SQL Server, since MySQL is the only true cross platform solution
    3) Stop supporting Windows, since Linux is the only true cross platform solution
    4) Stop supporting Office, since OpenOffice is the only true cross platform solution
    5) Stop supporting C# and VB (please!), since Java is the only true cross platform solution
    6) Stop supporting Visual Studio, since vi is the only true cross platform solution
    7) Stop supporting Internet Explorer, since FireFox, Chrome, and Safari are the only true cross platform solutions
    8) Stop supporting Windows Phone 7, since the iPhone and Android are the only true cross platform solutions

    Monday, November 01, 2010 1:04 AM
  • Colin ,let's look at it again

    <quote>But when it comes to touting Silverlight as Microsoft’s vehicle for delivering a cross-platform runtime, “our strategy has shifted,” </quote>

     What MS SHOULD have done is to tout BOTH HTML5 AND SILVERLIGHT as modes of delivering cross platform runtime. HTML isn't for everything, Microsoft was playing this card a few months ago but now it sounds like they've changed their mind

    Read my post above 

    Monday, November 01, 2010 1:05 AM
  • @bryanmorris

    I never thought of it like that, but you are right on there.  Its stupid of them for stopping support for Silverlight in that regard when you look at everything else they have that only lives in the "Windows environment".

    Monday, November 01, 2010 1:39 AM
  • Can some official from MS clarify what really going on? Please!

    We are MS partners for many years and invested lot in silverlight products. Was it just waste of our time and money?

    And, ironically, today we launch first version of our new silverlight product grapholite.com - can you create similar project in HTML5? at what cost? ha!




    Monday, November 01, 2010 2:51 AM
  • Wrong message sent out, with a stupid move causing numerous problems in IT planning and now getting furious feedbacks from us, the .NET developers.

     

    Monday, November 01, 2010 4:02 AM
  • I hope Microsoft will speak up about this.

    If Silverlight had problems with getting adopted, after this, it will get huge problems.

    Without a good explanation, it's a warning flag saying like "Microsoft puts Silverlight on hold. People, stop the development with it."


    Monday, November 01, 2010 7:34 AM
  • It is interesting that the famous WPF guru Josh Smith started playing with Mac, objective C and Cocoa environment (http://ijoshsmith.com/).  Perhaps we should all start looking into it. I do plan to buy a Mac, and time permitting will try to develop skills in programming Objective C

    Monday, November 01, 2010 8:05 AM
  • Just noticed that on Jesse Libertie's blog he changed his motto from "Silverlight Geek" to "Code to live. Live to code".

    It seems like it is a complete destruction.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 8:19 AM
  • Like everyone here I'm very nervous about this development - especially as I've recently sold the use of the technology to my senior management. As a thought, is it not possible, in theory, for there to be an option to 'output' SL code to 'equivalent' HTML5/javascript/ASP.NET code - that way at least the developers could still develop once in SL and the output could be consumed across all platforms.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 8:51 AM
  • @Colin

    Hmm. Sounds like what you're saying is, "Nothing to see here people, move along".  You really belive that?  I have a different take. It sounds like to me that an internal political battle has been won by the html fanboys. Time will tell.

    I, for one, intend to focus more of my development energies on server-side/service-based technologies. Silverlight is (was?) really the only thing that makes web development palatable for me. I have better things to do with my time than generate HTML and write javascript.

    Technologies are deprecated all the time; if you can't deal with that then you're probably in the wrong line of business. It is particularly troubling, however, when a *much* better technogloy is thrown overboard for one that is manifestly inferior.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 9:01 AM
  • Please check Pete Brown's blog about the future of WPF etc and Silverlight team's blog about future of Silverlight.

    http://10rem.net/blog/2010/10/28/the-present-and-future-of-wpf

    http://team.silverlight.net/announcement/the-future-of-silverlight/

    Both of them show that Silverlight and WPF are both well alive and still developed platforms, they're not going anywhere.

    Mr Muglia caused quite a lot of PR damage with his poor choice of words to credibility of the Silverlight, and an official statement should be published to put these rumours to rest.


    Monday, November 01, 2010 9:14 AM
  • Hi,

    Do not mix everything up. Josh Smith (like me) is employed by IdentityMine, a firm who is very much involved in WPF/SL/WP7/Surface development, but also exploring other domains such as iPhone programming. We recently published a video editor named Splice for this platform. I can assure you that IdentityMine (and Josh's) commitment to the Microsoft platforms is unchanged, but we are learning new things all the time, this is what makes us a great and successful firm.

    Cheers,

    Laurent

    Monday, November 01, 2010 9:18 AM
  • And, ironically, today we launch first version of our new silverlight product grapholite.com - can you create similar project in HTML5? at what cost? ha\

     

    That's a sweet silverlight app.

    We have built our whole business future on Silverlight. I hope MS will come out with a clear vision for this product now because I feel we have been kicked in the teeth with this whole 'shift' of direction.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 9:42 AM
  • wow!! I thought Silverlight is overcome flash. But WPF never die. Ok Silverlight. I should come back to WPF. I have been spent my time with U for six month.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 9:50 AM
  • Actually I don't care so much about the "physical plugin" Silverlight if HTML5/SVG can provide all the functionality now that Silverlight/Flash ever did. HTML5/SVG will even be hardware accelerated by the browsers of the next generation.
    What I want to keep however is the development model. XAML and MVVM, and C# also on the Client side instead of JavaScript.
    XAML is an "Application Mark-Up Language" after all and thus could serve very well as a GUI abstraction layer, so that in an ideal world, our apps could run anywhere (on the desktop, in the browser, on a mobile device) with little or no changes.
    Here's a feature request [ http://dotnet.uservoice.com/forums/4325-silverlight-feature-suggestions/suggestions/1029473-make-a-silverlight-app-render-to-html5-svg-css ] for making our Silverlight apps of today running in browsers of tomorrow without any plugin installed by compiling our XAML/C# code to HTML/SVG/CSS/Javascript.

    Actually I don't care so much about the "physical plugin" Silverlight if HTML5/SVG can provide all the functionality now that Silverlight/Flash ever did. HTML5/SVG will even be hardware accelerated by the browsers of the next generation.

    What I want to keep however is the development model. XAML and MVVM, and C# also on the Client side instead of JavaScript.

    XAML is an "Application Mark-Up Language" after all and thus could serve very well as a GUI abstraction layer, so that in an ideal world, our apps could run anywhere (on the desktop, in the browser, on a mobile device) with little or no changes. The Script# project can compile .NET code to Javascript even today.

    Here's a feature request [ http://dotnet.uservoice.com/forums/4325-silverlight-feature-suggestions/suggestions/1029473-make-a-silverlight-app-render-to-html5-svg-css ] for making our Silverlight apps of today running in browsers of tomorrow without any plugin installed by compiling our XAML/C# code to HTML/SVG/CSS/Javascript.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 10:01 AM
  • Keep your sanity please. Silverlight is far from dead. See what MaryJo Foley herself says:

    http://twitter.com/#!/maryjofoley/status/29318090218

    Laurent

    Monday, November 01, 2010 10:24 AM
  • What I want to keep however is the development model. XAML and MVVM, and C# also on the Client side instead of JavaScript.

    That's a nice idea, but I don't really see how, technically, you get from XAML/Silverlight to HTML without proprietary extensions. And even then, creating a mapping from the XAML/C# space to the HTML/Javascript space would be an extremely complex undertaking.  

    I have developed with MS technologies for over 15 years and throwing Silverlight under the bus is probably the single biggest mistake I've seen them make. Yes, there have been many missteps (think WINFS, Object Spaces and, most recently, Oslo) but with Silverlight you have a great technolgy that works NOW, a vibrant and passionate development community, more learning resources and third party support coming on-line every day...and now, this?

    Way to go MS. Trying to convice traditional ASP.Net shops/developers that there's a better way to go just got significantly more difficult. !

    Monday, November 01, 2010 10:25 AM
  •  

    I don't believe this until officially confirmed.
    So should we also shift from c# to javascript ?
    Is .NET dead ?

     

     

    Monday, November 01, 2010 10:35 AM
  • Again, please stay reasonable. Noone threw anything under any bus. Silverlight is actively developed, and we will get clarifications about the whole thing. In the mean time, there is no need to panic.

    Thanks,

    Laurent

    Monday, November 01, 2010 10:39 AM
  • Do you really think, if C# was dead, that they would have shown C# 5.0 (notably the whole asynchronicity improvements) at PDC?

    Guys, no offense, but this thread is starting to sound like Twitter. I agree that the messaging around SL was terrible at PDC, and that MSFT messed up big time, but honestly, we are adult, reasonable developers, let's also act like it.

    Thanks,

    Laurent

    Monday, November 01, 2010 10:41 AM
  • Again, please stay reasonable. Noone threw anything under any bus. Silverlight is actively developed, and we will get clarifications about the whole thing. In the mean time, there is no need to panic.

    To me, relegating Silverlight to the status of a Windows Phone 7 SDK is "throwing it under the bus". This is not panic but, rather, a reasonable interpretation of not just the PDC PR screw-up but of the general direction Silverlight seems to be going. All of the SL development focus at MS seems to be WP7. If SL is not tied to the future of WP7 then it would be great if MS could provide some much-needed clarity.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 10:50 AM
  • Hmm. Sounds like what you're saying is, "Nothing to see here people, move along".  You really belive that?  I have a different take. It sounds like to me that an internal political battle has been won by the html fanboys. Time will tell.

    Nothing to see here? Well, I wouldn't say that. For one thing, I am shocked at how badly Microsoft is handling this PR problem. This could have and should have been fixed last week, instead here we are on Monday with the work day almost over in Europe and Microsoft still hasn't come up with an answer because their work day hasn't started yet. I hope nobody in Microsoft PR ever wants to work in politics.

    As for "internal political battles", the only evidence we have for that is a guy in Australia who hasn't worked at Microsoft for almost a year and who spent the weekend cursing out another ex-Microsoft employee over Twitter for thinking that WP7 could be a successful consumer phone.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 10:54 AM
  • Muglia did not say that. He mentioned media apps, LOB apps, in short all the apps we already build with SL. ALso, don't forget the whole OOB domain, where you can build desktop apps for PC and for Mac with elevated permissions. This is also not going anywhere.

    Cheers,

    Laurent

    Monday, November 01, 2010 11:05 AM
  • Nothing to see here? Well, I wouldn't say that. For one thing, I am shocked at how badly Microsoft is handling this PR problem. This could have and should have been fixed last week, instead here we are on Monday with the work day almost over in Europe and Microsoft still hasn't come up with an answer because their work day hasn't started yet. I hope nobody in Microsoft PR ever wants to work in politics.

    Earlier I summarized my thread reply as this:

    tl;dr: Over-reaction?  Possibly.  Hopefully!  Clarification please.

    and I see that many also believe (at least hope) that this is a miscommunication.

    A little bird told me that indeed this is the case, and clarification will be coming.  Big sigh of relief :)

    Monday, November 01, 2010 11:09 AM
  • Senior management gets PAID to "control the message", while being the cheerleader.  I have been working with Microsoft technologies since 97 and really following PDC and conferences since 2003.   I have never seen community blow back like this.

    They need to be very strong in their wording here and make it clear they are commited to Silverlight.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 11:14 AM
  • That's a nice idea, but I don't really see how, technically, you get from XAML/Silverlight to HTML without proprietary extensions. And even then, creating a mapping from the XAML/C# space to the HTML/Javascript space would be an extremely complex undertaking.


    No proprietary extensions. Things will be converted at compile time.

    Necessary bits and pieces already do exist: XAML/SVG conversion, Script# compiler (C# to JavaScript) ... They just have to developed further and integrated into comprehensive tooling support.

    Yes, there's still some work to do, and I don't deny it will be a complex and challenging task to bring things to the level of Silverlight 4 today. But if Microsoft won't do it, I'm confident some folks in the community will do it.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 11:17 AM
  • http://twitter.com/#!/timheuer/status/29242703602


    @timheuer Tim Heuer
    @LockeDown815 no. and there is no shift as it is being reported. our team is busy on v-next as well as phone.
    Monday, November 01, 2010 11:24 AM
  • Even Apple likes Silverlight:

    http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/development_tools/silverlight.html

    It also seems from the picture they see it useful for some kind of cool PAD :)

    Monday, November 01, 2010 1:27 PM
  • It should not be Tim Heuer. The information about SL destruction comes from Steve Ballmer and Bob Muglia. If they did not want this information to be interpreted the way most people interpret it, they would have issued some statements on it themselves.

    I am afraid this is not a PR problem but a PR policy.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 1:36 PM
  • It should not be Tim Heuer. The information about SL destruction comes from Steve Ballmer and Bob Muglia. If they did not want this information to be interpreted the way most people interpret it, they would have issued some statements on it themselves.

    Maybe they just don't want to...

    Monday, November 01, 2010 1:54 PM
  • Totally agree, if there is a strategic shift then SL product manager is the last to know.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 2:03 PM
  • And now, this is what everyone here is waiting for, a word from Bob Muglia.

    http://team.silverlight.net/announcement/pdc-and-silverlight/

    What do you think?

    Monday, November 01, 2010 2:12 PM
  • I like how he was careful up front to state that his original quote was reported accurately, making sure not to anger the press. To quote someone's interpretation of what I said earlier, nothing to to see here folks. Silverlight is fine, please resume your normal lives.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 2:20 PM
  • Add on: Ballmer just had this press release go out that also mentions Silverlight several times: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/nov10/11-01Statement.mspx

    Monday, November 01, 2010 2:25 PM
  • nothing to to see here folks

    I think the lesson is that we should only be using Silverlight (on PCs) where HTML/JavaScript/CSS cannot accomplish the same thing, even if using HTML takes more work and time. That's a change in my attitude due to Microsoft's "shift" toward HTML5.



    Monday, November 01, 2010 3:42 PM
  • This is great news and all I can say is phew.

    I am not a programmer like most people on this forum, I am a completely self taught hobbyist with big plans.

    About a year or two ago, about a month before SL3's release, I was looking around trying to find a web-based programming language. I looked at Flash and thought, not bad but a bit too simple. I then looked at Java and thought, better still but generics (a method for me to cut down on my programming hours) were a bit feeble. I was about to invest a lot of time teaching myself Java and then someone suggested I look at Silverlight. Instantly I thought SL just left the others behind in the dust. Not only c# and some credible generics but all the Xaml to boot as well, AND (and this is a biggy for me) a small user download. Then I found the helpful community here and even started looking at wishlists. Silverlight not only surpassed the also-rans in the areas that were important to me but had Big Plans for the future.

    When you guys announce the OOB stuff in SL4 I initially did not realise, due to my lack of programming background, why this was soooo cool. It only dawned on me about a month later and then I thought WOW.

    So when this thread started and I thought I would have to convert all my code over to HTML5 and Javascript I did some reading on what these were. All I could think was, well the best way to describe it was a shrug of the shoulders and a bemused 'so what'. A MASSIVE step backwards from SL3/4. Had everyone lost their minds in MS management? SL was a million times better than HTML5 and was going places.

    HTML5 might have a very large cross-platform base but SL had the platforms with the most users; even Macs were covered. So what about some of the smaller platforms. Everyone ends up on their PCs/Macs at work and at home so who cares about platform saturation. It's what SL can do that is important.

    Anyway, that is my 2 pennies worth.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 4:00 PM
  • @Laurent - Very good posts!  The reaction we've all experienced is natural and expected.  However, it's becoming clear that while there is a "Shift", it's a shift in Microsoft's view of the world.  I don't think anyone in their right mind was writing HTML 5 off, but looking forward to having a standard that could do more in those situations where Silverlight didn't make sense.

    @Colin - Your comments, while mostly accurate, only inflame the debate and cause more violent disagreement.  Statements like,

    "Like I said before, Microsoft is just stating a fundamental truth here."

    Are not helpful, and insults developers intelligence.  We recognize truth, but when Microsoft uses a word like "Shift", only the ignorant fail to understand that truth doesn't shift.  It's clear that they were delivering a message.  All we wanted was for that message to be a lot clearer.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 4:18 PM
  • Deleted.

    You know what, now that everything has started calming down I am going to shut up now and go back to answering questions in the RIA Services forum like I usually do.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 4:21 PM
  • As a die hard Silverlight developer, I think the reason the "shift" comment and Barnes' blog caused such an uproar is that if you sift the tea leaves a bit there are some grounds for insecurity. For example, why is Silverlight's presence on Bing so minuscule? One of the reasons Flash continues to be so popular is Youtube, and here Microsoft has an incredibly popular site, but it doesn't showcase Silverlight at all. In fact, Bing developers put together fancy demos of HTML 5. WHY? If people are accessing Bing from their phones, they are using APPS, not a HTML 5 browser. If people are accessing Bing from PCs or MACs they are WAY more likely to be doing it from a Silverlight enabled browser than a HTML 5 browser. Or take their video search results. Would it kill the Bing developers to detect if I've got Silverlight installed, and if I do, not use the virus ridden POS known as Flash?

    The lack of a Silverlight SDK for XBOX is another example. As a XAML developer reverting to defining user interfaces in code is so unpleasant I just can't bring myself to do it. I know resources may be limited, but the Silverlight runtime is 5MB, simply spin off another group to do the port. The runtime is only 5MB, you can't convince me this would be a monumental effort. The same goes for Droid, this should have at least been announced by now. If you want to convince us of your dedication, go ahead and announce this TODAY. Maybe you're hoping to save this for MIX, but we're adults, we don't need to have all our surprises stored up for Christmas.

    In the immediate future, say five years, there are only seven relevant platforms...

    • Windows
    • MAC
    • WP7
    • iPhone
    • Droid
    • XBOX
    • Playstation

    Silverlight is already on three of them, having it on the other four would be a dream for ISVs. There's lots of talk about HTML 5 being the cross platform answer, but anyone who looks at the spec and knows the snails pace of the committee (I'm insulting snails here) knows that's a load of ****. For example, is Netflix going to move to HTML 5 without DRM or threading?Are they going to implement adaptive streaming in Javascript?

    Muglia's comments did a lot of damage, and whether Microsoft realizes it or not, it's going to take a lot more than, "we were misunderstood" to repair it. Please give us some specifics TODAY, even if you weren't 100% prepared to do so.   

    Monday, November 01, 2010 5:22 PM
  • An article by MG Siegler of TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/01/silverlight-silverlight/

    He mentioned an "uproar in the Silverlight Forums" and pointed to this thread :D

    All in all, I think this is certainly a snafu in how Microsoft communicates.  Even though at the end of the day, there is "nothing to see here" (per Colin), but perception *is* reality and I am glad at least there is a strong coordinated rebuttal from Bob Muglia, Steve Ballmer, and a few evangelists (and I'm sure Scottgu will pitch in soon).

    One positive out of this is that Silverlight no longer has to carry the burden of having to beat HTML5 at its own turf -- it doesn't, it shouldn't, and it can't.  The focus is on building something richer, like rich web/phone/tablet apps (that are outside of what HTML5 should/could do).

    In sharp contrast to MS's messaging, Steve Jobs managed to elegantly sell both open (HTML5) and close (iOS apps) at the same time while looking like a genius and profiting from them handsomely (Phone $ + app $ + ad $).  He never have to pitch apps vs. HTML5, did he?

    Monday, November 01, 2010 6:59 PM
  • Siegler is a bigot, as his last article shows. The comments call him out on that, if you notice.

    Regarding Jobs, if he said the Earth is flat, people would go and correct textbooks to confirm the fact. If Ballmer said the Earth is round, people will say "not exactly, it is actually flat at the poles". My point is that the perception of what they say is very different in the public, and most importantly in the media.

    Unfortunately, we live in an age where perception is more important than facts, so that's what happened this weekend.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 7:32 PM
  • Bottom line...

    Microsoft: Developers! Developers! Developers.... F*** YOU!

    Monday, November 01, 2010 7:59 PM
  • Well, I call Rock Bottom on this thread.

    But, to put a period on it, Steve B stated this today in the above mentioned link:

    "Silverlight provides the richest media streaming capabilities on the web, and we will continue to deliver that on both Windows and Mac."

    I don't think the message can get any clearer that MS is commited to Silverlight.

    Greg

    Monday, November 01, 2010 8:58 PM
  • How very nice that Muglia and, to a much lesser extent, Ballmer eased the barn door shut after the horses got out. Unfortunately, the damage is and continues to be done. Even after the aforementioned mea culpas, the press is still reporting MSFT is backing HTML5 and distancing itself from Silverlight. And they will continue to because that's a more fun story to write than a halfhearted retraction. One example from TheRegister:

    "Fans roast Microsoft for Silverlight demotion"

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/01/muglia_silverlight_future/

    You're going to find it was much easier to torpedo Silverlight than it's going to be to patch the hole and pump the water out. As someone else said, the combination of HTML and Javascript is a manifestly inferior environment for developing real applications than the Silverlight/C#/Visual Studio stack.

    Way to go guys. You've set web application development back a number of years.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 10:18 PM
  • repost my post at Laurent Bugnion's blog
    blog.galasoft.ch/.../...he-silverlight-debate.aspx

    ------------------------------------------------------
    Thanks Laurent for your lengthy response. You have lots my respects. I am about using your MVVM light and buying your book, that says all. Maybe we all were a bit over-react. This Silverlight thing seems an isolated incidence, but not really. Over years, Microsoft lost its creditability if not lost its way yet. When I saw the news, I immediately thought about MS disassembled IE team after they killed Netscape, I thought something like will happen to the Silverlight. The statement like “we are all in” towards to WP7 and the cloud, gave me less confident, not more, more like empty statement from a teenager.

    With Apple at left, Google at right, Microsoft is struggling, Silverlight as few good things coming out of Microsoft, last thing you want is to create huge confusion among Silverlight community, your first line of support. and its impact on CIO/CTO is way beyond what Microsoft can understand, really. As MVP, it is probably relatively easy for you to convince CTO/CIO, but not most ordinary Silverlight lovers like myself. Late 2008, I was working on html/Ajax web application in one of well-known companies in Seattle. I spent lots my own time (I am consultant) and put my reputation online pushing Silverlight. Finally I convinced them to the Silverlight, one of reason it was kind difficult because MS lost its credibility among them. Otherwise, its CIO/CTO will push Silverlight, not another way around. This company has over 10 yrs history, over $200M revenue, all they use is Microsoft technologies.

    Microsoft built itself on one believe: PC will be in everyone’s hand, and every home. In this Post-PC days, they seems lost their way and their believe, the “shifted” statement only show they are struggling.

    Until I gain more confidence, I will think twice to push MS technology with my reputation, I simply can’t afford to do so after what happened over past days.

    Monday, November 01, 2010 10:35 PM
  • Just noticed that on Jesse Libertie's blog he changed his motto from "Silverlight Geek" to "Code to live. Live to code".

    It seems like it is a complete destruction.

    A month ago, Jesse indicated that he wanted to focus more on Windows Phone 7, and I approved it. Me (client) and Jon Galloway (web) are doing the non-WP7 Silverlight content. I also do WPF, and Jon also does ASP.NET MVC.

    To that end, he has been branding his stuff around that, including even his internal signature. Note that he will be focusing on Silverlight on WP7. He's just really excited about that platform.

    Don't read anything into other than Jesse loves Silverlight and is REALLY excited about WP7 and there are two other people on the team (a team of 4) who are really excited about Silverlight :)

    Pete

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:03 AM
  • To the folks saying we threw people under the bus, please make sure you read Mary Jo's original post. That is the sum total of the original information that has been reblogged, copied, pasted, etc. over the course of the past few days. (Also keep in mind that controversy pays the bills for many of these bloggers, as they get paid by the hit.)

    While I agree that the original quotes from BobMu don't accurately portray the entire story, I also think the press, and the blog and twitter communities have blown this way up.

    Three of the things that he explicitly said in the interview (and which were reported - but unfortunately lost in the public reaction to it) were:

    1. Silverlight is very important and strategic to Microsoft.
    2. We’re working hard on the next release of Silverlight, and it will continue to be cross-browser and cross-platform, and run on Windows and Mac.
    3. Silverlight is a core application development platform for Windows, and it’s the development platform for Windows Phone.

    That all said, we're working to make things right. Take BobMu's team.silverlight.net post at face value. There's nothing to hide there, other than a truth that is apparently less interesting than the rumors. :) I think it's fantastic that as a company we've come out in support of an important emerging web standard. In fact, I know we usually get dinged for not doing that. Sure, the standard isn't ready yet, but are we actually being punished for adopting a web standard too early?

    At the same time, we've made a very strong statement for Silverlight. We're continuing to use it, we're continuing to invest in it, we're continuing to support it.

    (As a moderator here, I'm removing the "FU" posts. They may have been amusing for a moment, but they add nothing to the rational discourse and don't belong in a civilized forum. Please continue the discussion, but keep it civil.)

    Pete

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:21 AM
  • Pete,

    I somewhat disagree with you.  In the absence of full information, the "panic" was a reasonable reaction.  M. J. Foley asked a specific question regarding the lack of Silverlight messages in PDC, and the answer she got was "Microsoft's strategy has shifted".

    First let's be clear that nobody is disputing that Silverlight is key to WP7 and HTML5 effort must be redoubled.  No question about that.  Now, I re-read M. J. Foley's original post, and let me reframe what I read next to your 3 bullet points and you'll see why this is a problem.

    1. Silverlight is very important and strategic to Microsoft

    -- We all agree SL is important because of WP7.  But it sounded like Bob means SL will be important because of WP7 *ONLY*.  Is plugin-based Silverlight to be phrased out?

    2. Silverlight will continue to be cross-browser and cross-platform

    -- But "the delivery pace of Silverlight is slowing" and the "strategy has shifted".  This sounds like a product being phrased out or de-emphasized.  Is plugin-based Silverlight to be phrased out?

    3. Silverlight is the development platform for Windows Phone

    -- I didn't read any mentioning of Silverlight being "a core application development platform for Windows".  I guess you can blame M. J. Foley for taking it out.  The different is significant.  It is like a woman asks a man, "Are you my love?  Are you my friend?"  And the man says, "I'll always be your friend".  Who can blame the woman from thinking he means "I'll always be your friend ONLY"?  Based on the same logic, is plugin-based Silverlight to be phrased out?

    Look, it is all a big misunderstanding.  The answer to the question "Is plugin-based Silverlight to be phrased out?" is negative (right?).  You can even argue that I am violenting agreeing with you regarding things being blown out of proportion.  But the truth is, vague and misleading words were quoted.  Developers panicked.  Enemies jumped on it.  This is what I called miscommunication and the unfortunate consequence.

    Now it is important for the Microsoft corporate side not to be too defensive about "nothing is wrong, get over it".  This only rubs the development community the wrong way.  Take this as a learning experience, and improve on the communication.  If anything, don't give MG Siegler ammunition to bad mouth Silverlight for no reason.  Having to answer clients' question about "why TechCrunch said Silverlight is dead?", even if it is not true, is no fun.

    -- Hardy Leung (ksleung@tagxedo.com)


    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:08 AM
  • -- But "the delivery pace of Silverlight is slowing" and the "strategy has shifted".  This sounds like a product being phrased out or de-emphasized.  Is plugin-based Silverlight to be phrased out?

    He cleary said that the delivery pace is slowing down because SL technology is maturing - it's only natural! We don't need a new SL release every month; many people are still on SL3 and SL4 kicks ass (despite some bugs/issues/lack of features). There's no need to rush out SL5/6 ...

    Calm down people, after reading BM's clarification my mind is at ease. It's a good thing that HTML5 is being backed by MS - SL will benefit from it and find it's natural place.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:58 AM
  • ok I think Microsoft made it right. Would have been nice to get the clarifications we got the last 5-6 hours 3 days ago, but better late than never.

    Anyway, I'm sure sure when The Gu returns from leave he'll make developers feel good about Silverlight again, as he always does.

    Meanwhile, apologies for the play-on-words "FU" comment...

    Looking back, I do believe this whole thing has been blown out of proportions and is old news now.  Back to work.

    At the same time, we've made a very strong statement for Silverlight. We're continuing to use it, we're continuing to invest in it, we're continuing to support it.

    (As a moderator here, I'm removing the "FU" posts. They may have been amusing for a moment, but they add nothing to the rational discourse and don't belong in a civilized forum. Please continue the discussion, but keep it civil.)

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:01 AM
  • SL may well be around for a while yet, but when you shift focus of a product surely that means that it's not going to be the product that we thought we could use for everything?

    It's not like MS don't have a track record of ditching extremely competent technologies (VFP?), we've seen it before, they will do it again.

    The only way you will gain peoples trust and expect them to continue using SL is to keep releasing new versions, but large companies who have put money into this are going to be seriously considering jumping ship now, like I say it doesn't matter what you say in a press release, actions speak louder than words, and action is what's needed to gain peoples trust right now.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 7:26 AM
  • I'm willing to accept B. M.'s clarification at face value; however, in all of this, there is still one point that remains unclear and that is Silverlight's position in the abscence of WPF 7. Yes, Silverlight is strategic in the sense that it is key to WP7 but what, exactly, is the MS vision for Silverlight if WP7 is not successufl? Will Silverlight still be a "strategic" technology? If so, what makes it vital? I think this is the point that has not been communicated effectively. As developers, we recognize the considerable superiority of SL over HTML X/javascript. If we didn't, it's doubtful that there would have been such an uproar over this. We know that Silverlight allows a developer to be more productive, agile and that it is a significantly more pleasing development experience than being mired in the HTML X/javascript morass. I'm wondering though, from a business perspective, what justifies Silverlight's existence, assuming WP7 didn't exist, now that MS has embraced the "HTML is the future" mantra. Microsoft and others have demonstrated that without Silverlight it is still possible (though admittedly painful) to develop usable and engaging HTML X/javascript-based "applications". What is the business rationale for Silverlight in this context? I'll reitterate, Silverlight is the only thing that I find interesting/engaing about "web" development; HTML X is overwhelmingly inferior and dated. But, since it's the only thing that everyone can apparently agree upon and MS is either unwilling or unable to push a different vision, can we still truly expect strong support for Silverlight from MS in the future?

    One thing is clear though: It is going to be *very* difficult now to push SL adoption to the people that I work for by using the "emrace it, it's the future" argument. Now, the case can only be "ebrace it, it's more fun and productive and maintainable" argument, something which a lot of the business class doesn't really get. The pushback more than likely will be "But isn't MS getting rid of that?" :-[

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:10 AM
  • I'm willing to accept B. M.'s clarification at face value; however, in all of this, there is still one point that remains unclear and that is Silverlight's position in the abscence of WPF 7.

    I would invite you to watch the sessions at PDC if you haven't already, for instance the one on the future of WPF. What was said at PDC is that desktop development should start with Silverlight and then you can later migrate to WPF if you need to. It was said several times that WPF is now focused on the ISV market, which Pete Brown later clarified to mean Shrink-wrapped / Retail Software. It was also said that WPF itself is gaining a new ability to host Silverlight which gives us the ability to create true composite WPF/Silverlight applications.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:02 AM
  • Colin,  I'm guessing his reference to WPF7 was a slip of the finger from WP7.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:35 AM
  • MS really needs do something about damage control on  “CIO/CTO impact”.  Over years, MS damaged itself over many screw-ups. Once you lost the respect, and creditability, everything will be much harder for you no matter how much money you have, how hard you try.

    The posts by S.B and B.M all seems bit empty to me, the face value means not much to me.  However, I trust/believe Silverlight itself much more than them, trust/believe people who develop the Silverlight much more than them. If past days was bit hard for us, imagine how hard would be for people inside MS who is working on the Silverlight.

     Please Microsoft, do not screw Silverlight up…. you do not have much left.....

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:49 AM
  • Yes, you are correct, I was referring to Windows Phone 7, not WPF; that was a typo on my part. The fundamental question I was posing - which should have been clear from the surrounding context - is what happens to Silverlight in the absence of Phone? Is continued development of Silverlight technology predicated on the the existence of Windows Phone 7 and, if not, what is the business case/rationale for further investements in Silverlight given the "HTML 5 is Our Future" paradigm?

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:59 AM
  • I had no problem with the typo, the context was clear. NTDeveloper's question was what happens to Silverlight in the absence of phone, and as just repeated, "is development of Silverlight technology predicated on the existance of Windows Phone 7". My answer is was that if you watch the sessions at PDC you will see that Silverlight is also being promoted as the primary platform for desktop applications as well. Since that can sound like WPF is being pushed out, I then included how and where WPF fits into the puzzle. I can understand how you could take my inclusion of WPF as meaning I misunderstoof the question, but that wasn't the case.

    So, is the continued development of Silverlight predicated on the continued existance of Windows Phone 7? No, it is also predicated on the continued existance of Windows itself.

    Edit: I am not going to comment beyond that on just how predicated on the continued existance of Windows it might be, or how damaged Silverlight would be if WP7 fails. I am just saying there was more coverage of this at PDC then just the keynote and I would encourage you to watch for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:25 PM
  • So, is the continued development of Silverlight predicated on the continued existance of Windows Phone 7? No, it is also predicated on the continued existance of Windows itself.

    Edit: I am not going to comment beyond that on just how predicated on the continued existance of Windows it might be, or how damaged Silverlight would be if WP7 fails. I am just saying there was more coverage of this at PDC then just the keynote and I would encourage you to watch for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

    I did, in fact, watch portions of the PDC and one of the few talks that mentioned Silverlight did so within the context of the "portable core" project type for which a CTP will be available in January. One of the things that struck me about a "portable core" project is that WP7 serves as the LCD. If I understood the presentation correctly, only features that intersect in WP7 and Silverlight (and, of course, the base CLR) will be included in this project type. This effectively leaves WP7 in the driver's seat for shareable code - something that Silverlight developers have been screaming about for months, nay, years. Furthermore, given all of the emphasis on Silverlight within the context of WP7 it seems that MS, intentionally or not,  is relegating Silverlight to be a servant of WPF7. Thus the question of the business case for SL in the absence of WP7 still stands. I'm not saying there's *not* a business case; I believe there is. The productivity advantage alone is compelling but this is not how Silverlight has primarily been positioned in the marketplace up to this point.

    Furthermore, hypothetical or real interoperability between SL and Windows Presentation Foundation doesn't really contribute to this business case. WPF does everything SL does and more; f you're going to be running exclusively on Windows in a corporate environment then WPF makes a lot of sense and there's really no need for Silverlight.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:21 PM
  • Furthermore, hypothetical or real interoperability between SL and Windows Presentation Foundation doesn't really contribute to this business case. WPF does everything SL does and more; f you're going to be running exclusively on Windows in a corporate environment then WPF makes a lot of sense and there's really no need for Silverlight.

    I am getting out of the "convincing people" business for now unless you want to discuss WCF RIA Services, so I will just say watch the Future of WPF session from PDC (it was one of the online only ones) and that corporate intranet applications is all that I do and I have found Silverlight to be much easier to work with then WPF in that environment. YRMV

    EDIT: I can't remember if that was the one that said you should start with Silverlight, or if that was one with Pete Brown in it. They are kind of running together on me.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:03 PM
  • WPF does everything SL does and more; f you're going to be running exclusively on Windows in a corporate environment then WPF makes a lot of sense and there's really no need for Silverlight.

    There are quite a few things Silverlight does that WPF does not. While it is primarily a subset of WPF, it's not entirely so. (webcam/mic, deepzoom, pivotviewer, plane projection, WCF RIA Services client etc.)

    WPF is becoming the "great integrator" of technologies, enabling you to bring forward things like windows forms or C++ code along with Silverlight and (through the hosted browser) even HTML to make the most of the assets you have while still providing the best possible desktop experience.

    Pete

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:32 PM
  • Just a quick note to the moderators of this forum. I think most of us understand that you guys didn't create the mess that you're now having to try to clean up. We appreciate your efforts even if your "superiors" don't.

    On another note, I think this whole thing is largely the result of Ballmer and Muglia trying to repurpose PDC from what it usually is, a conference for educating and informing MS platform developers, into a marketing event for IE9. Since IE9 was already in the news for winning an HTML5 shootout with the other browsers, it was an opportunity to tout it. Notably absent from the HTML5 love fest was any mention of actual developer tools for building HTML5 sites/apps. And I'm sorry, but a browser, any browser, is not a software development tool. It's more accurately a software development straitjacket.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:43 PM
  • @Pete,


    It is like you said the blog article of "Silverlight DIES a horrible death and HTML5 lives....buahahahahahah" is much more sensational than "HTML5 is the true cross-browser platform".  Which leads to more pageviews and web hits.  Even the update to the article was something like "MS reaffirms HTML5"....not the true story which was that Silverlight has its spot and so does HTML5.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:44 PM
  • Hope someone clever from MS will think again before making any decision. If MS really shifts SL away, it will make it's developers very angry, and in developers, I mean not only SL devs, but the those too which are planning to move to SL (boy this is a huge army). So MS, you know better than anyone that the source of your success is developers who write software for your platform. If you throw away developers favorite tools and throw us some standardized junk, you'll loose us. Undecided

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:44 PM
  • A few things that this "wound" (because it is a wound that can be healed) has caused:

    - CTO/CIOs will be harder to convince on Silverlight

    - Chief/Enterprise Architects in large organizations will throw out "edicts" that HTML5 is our future strategy and Silverlight is gone

    - MS developers interested in the future of the web will move to......(?).  Right now if I am a startup developer for some super HTML5 project; I would have no choice but to move to Mac and Adobe HTML5 tools.

    - Someone posted this on my blog; that MS NEEDS Silverlight to succeed so that WP7 succeeds...WHY IN THE WORLD would u do this now?

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:54 PM
  • WPF does everything SL does and more; f you're going to be running exclusively on Windows in a corporate environment then WPF makes a lot of sense and there's really no need for Silverlight.

    There are quite a few things Silverlight does that WPF does not. While it is primarily a subset of WPF, it's not entirely so. (webcam/mic, deepzoom, pivotviewer, plane projection, WCF RIA Services client etc.)

    OK, I stand corrected; there are a few things that Silverlight has that WPF does not. This does not diminish the point though that WPF is a very capable technology that supports a wide range of development scenarios and that without Silverlight, would still stand well on its own. Although rumors persist, I don't think anybody seriously believes WPF is going anywhere.

    The question that still remains however, and that I would really like to hear your take on, is the business case for Silverlight in the absence of Windows Phone.  If Silverlight is no longer a competitor to Flash, for instance (and ultimately, this is what I think the "strategy has shifted" meme implies), then what justifies its existence? [Note, please consider these questions in the context of my previous posts on this subject]

    I have, over the past couple of months, attempted to convince one of my clients that moving some portions of their intranet to Silverlight was the right thing to do. I still believe that it is, but I really dread having to defend against the "isn't MS killing Silverlight" or "isn't that just going to be for their mobile platform?" type of arguments that I *know* will come up. What can I tell them that will put their minds at ease with respect to future MS investment in Silverlight solely as a RIA technology (and not as a phone platform)?

    Sorry, I don't mean to beat a dead (or living) horse here, but I just don't think that the message on this aspect is clear.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:53 PM
  •  Guys do you have any news? :(

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 2:56 AM
  •  Guys do you have any news?

    Apparently the strain of porting a 5MB runtime to the iPhone and Android is too much for Microsoft's limited resources.

    Old Microsoft -> "We don't care about standards" -> Happy Microsoft developers, but miserable Linux developers

    New Microsoft -> "We embrace standards instead of our superior offerings" -> Miserable Microsoft developers, but happy Linux developers

    Call me crazy, but I like the OLD Microsoft. Now I'm waiting for the "Our strategy on C# has changed, go with Java." Oh, here it is...

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/29/azure_java_roadmap/

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:21 AM
  • Bring back bill :((((((

    What can we do? what about a petition? :( 

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:29 AM
  • Bring back bill

    Bill or someone who shouts "developers, developers, developers" but actually knows that HTML 5 isn't a development platform, it's a cobbled together pile of vomit. Heck, put Melinda in charge...

    http://www.businessinsider.com/melinda-gates-bans-apple-products-from-the-gates-household-2010-10

    At least she would stand firm.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:36 AM
  • Respects melinda. I'd not be surprised if ballmer's wife used iPad :D

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 4:31 AM
  • After the initial hub-bub and rhudbarb I am feeling happy again. I want Silverlight for the cross-platform web experience and as far as I can see, on the machines that count, Silverlight is the business.

    Again, I ought to reiterate, I am not a programmer, only self taught, so I do not know all the lingo, but I do know what I like, I know what development tools make me look better than I am. Silverlight/c#/VS2010 Express is that package.

    Has anyone looked at Javascript/html5? I would not wish that on my worst enemy.......well maybe the guy down the road with the shifty eyes, but apart from him, no-one else.

    The management at MS would be mad to dump Silverlight for a web-experience and just have it for the phone-thing. If they did that, I think the courts would even allow us, the developer community to sign the commital papers.

    So everyone, stop panicing. Ask yourself what makes sense? The answer is Silverlight and not this Johny-Come-Lately Html5/Javascript thing.

     

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:57 AM
  • Ask yourself what makes sense?

    Want proof of the ongoing trend of stupidity?

    This is today (dumb):

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20021530-248.html?amp

    This was a year ago (smart):

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10408140-265.html

    You can't even begin to compare the experiences.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:04 AM
  • WTF!

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:33 AM
  • "With the new capabilities available in Bing.com/maps, the growth in Silverlight use, and the future with HTML5, we have also heard that customers want the best experience for the most people, without custom plugins for individual features. We have designed the new enhanced Bird’s eye with this in mind, so that the enhanced experience is accessible by users across technologies and platforms including desktop and mobile.

    As a consequence, we are also announcing that we will be discontinuing investment in the Bing Maps 3D control plug-in. We don’t normally pre-announce new features or big changes; but, we want to make sure current 3D Maps users receive a heads-up rather than spring it unannounced. When the next update to Bing.com/maps is launched in the upcoming weeks, the option to view 3D Maps will be removed."

    Oh man.  And despite the Disclaimer at the top of the page that says essentially, "We are still committed to Silverlight".  Yeah, they are committed, but they just aren't going to use it.  Come on.  It is sort of like, "Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain."

    I'm assuming that the "3d control plug-in" was a SL plug-in.  Maybe not.

    This is disappointing PARTICULARLY in its timing.

    I was starting to feel better about pushing SL and then more downer news.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:39 AM
  • "With the new capabilities available in Bing.com/maps, the growth in Silverlight use, and the future with HTML5, we have also heard that customers want the best experience for the most people, without custom plugins for individual features. We have designed the new enhanced Bird’s eye with this in mind, so that the enhanced experience is accessible by users across technologies and platforms including desktop and mobile.

    As a consequence, we are also announcing that we will be discontinuing investment in the Bing Maps 3D control plug-in. We don’t normally pre-announce new features or big changes; but, we want to make sure current 3D Maps users receive a heads-up rather than spring it unannounced. When the next update to Bing.com/maps is launched in the upcoming weeks, the option to view 3D Maps will be removed."

    Oh man.  And despite the Disclaimer at the top of the page that says essentially, "We are still committed to Silverlight".  Yeah, they are committed, but they just aren't going to use it.  Come on.  It is sort of like, "Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain."

    I'm assuming that the "3d control plug-in" was a SL plug-in.  Maybe not.

    This is disappointing PARTICULARLY in its timing.

    I was starting to feel better about pushing SL and then more downer news.

     

    SealedSealedSealedSealed

    Microsoft is not the company it was some years ago. I'm pretty sure the smart geeks like ozzie left the company and now dumbs like the one who made the decision to drop support for SL (or to make it mobile development platform only) are in the head.

    Forget about Silverlight, forget about .NET, forget about MS, and everyone move to JavaFX. I'm pretty sure they won't piss of their community the way MS did. Though JavaFx is new, it will mature in time and I think this is the best bet for now.
    F**** you M$.

    P.S. don't forget that office 365 is using sHhiTML...

     
    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:46 AM
  • Wow....they are DISCONTINUING AN ACTIVEX control not Silverlight.  Poor understanding of the information.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:04 AM
  • @ PETE - Great book!!!!

    Personally I am done fighting the Silverlight battle. It took a lot to convince me to pick up the fight for anything related to the browser. Silverlight showed some hope of breaking free of the browser limitations and architectural issues that come with it. I’ll be going back to WPF or Winforms for internal Enterprise Apps. or nothing. Someone else can build browser crap for internal apps. External apps, ASP.NET or MVC, but it will be a year or two before I push Silverlight again. Luckily Matthew MacDonald’s book Pro Silverlight 4 in C# was back ordered so I got to cancel it. I have 4 or 5 SL 4 books (on of them is yours) on my shelf already, and that is where I will be leaving them for a while.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:12 AM
  • Wow....they are DISCONTINUING AN ACTIVEX control not Silverlight.  Poor understanding of the information.

    Okay, that's a relief.  But I read it twice to try to figure out what they were talking about.  Still didn't get it and I didn't want to spend any more time on it.  Got SL OOB problems...

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:17 AM
  • More info from Bob Muglia:

    http://team.silverlight.net/announcement/pdc-and-silverlight/

    "
    ....
    ...
    Make no mistake; we’ll continue to invest in Silverlight and enable developers to build great apps and experiences with it in the future.
    ..."

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:27 AM
  • More info from Bob Muglia:

    http://team.silverlight.net/announcement/pdc-and-silverlight/

    "
    ....
    ...
    Make no mistake; we’ll continue to invest in Silverlight and enable developers to build great apps and experiences with it in the future.
    ..."

    that's not enough. after their claims about shifting SL strategy, at least they should port Office 365 to SL to gain trust from devs again. You don't have any guarantee that his words are true. We even don't have Silverlight roadmap. 

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:43 AM
  • May be we all need to switch to JAVA Undecided

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:57 AM
  • Hope not. I don't like java, but I won't like MS more if they do what I don't want them to do :P

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:58 AM
  • I think the response to the current situation from the many SL developers shows that the SL community is getting stronger every day. And the response from the top of MS, shows their commitment despite the PR error.    

    I also think the strength of the community dictates the life of a product as much as anything else. So I am glad to see the community is alive and well and focused on the future, because I for one see SL as my bread and butter for the foreseeable future. 

    Greg

    See the Silverlight Tip of the Week at SilverlightDev.net

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:16 PM
  • I think the response to the current situation from the many SL developers shows that the SL community is getting stronger every day. And the response from the top of MS, shows their commitment despite the PR error.    

    I also think the strength of the community dictates the life of a product as much as anything else. So I am glad to see the community is alive and well and focused on the future, because I for one see SL as my bread and butter for the foreseeable future. 

    Greg

    See the Silverlight Tip of the Week at SilverlightDev.net

    Totally agree . Great words.
    At least, I think if they were planning to shift SL somewhere else, they would certainly change their mind by now. Hope they are preparing another response as an excuse...

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:34 PM
  • Okay, that's a relief.

    Bing maps used to be Silverlight, and now it's not. Microsoft is truly saying one thing, but doing another thing entirely. I'd be STUNNED if a significant number of users were asking Bing to drop a VASTLY superior implementation just so they wouldn't have to install a plugin. Isn't Silverlight on 60% of machines now? Just how exactly is it going to reach Adobe's number when MICROSOFT WON'T EVEN USE IT ON THEIR OWN SITES. Heck, Silverlight.net doesn't even use Silverlight.

    I'm no anti-Microsoft troll. I'm a 3892 point contributor to this site. Khet was the first online multiplayer Silverlight game implemented on the 1.1 Alpha. I was hugely into Silverlight. I was hugely looking forward to getting the HTC HD7 next week. It's now apparent to me that Microsoft ONLY intends Silverlight to be their phone platform. As a browser plugin it's clearly something they've decided isn't worth the effort.

    Guess I'll just go ahead and get a Droid now. Until Bing brings back Silverlight maps and Microsoft demonstrates some ACTUAL commitment to Silverlight (words aren't cutting it) as a browser plugin, it's dead to me. What a colossal waste of my time. Thanks Microsoft.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:51 PM
  • Jack, It doesn't surprise me that Bing isn't going to use SL for maps.  I wouldn't either if I were over that dept as Bing is positioned as a seach engine for the masses.  Then, it is an issue whether or not SL is installed on every desktop.  Every person I have seen speak up on this thread has mentioned SL in the context of LOB apps which is an envirnoment where SL on the desktop can usually be easily accomplished.

    You will notice no-one has said - "oh, my all Silveright Website is now going to suffer" because like Flash, all SL websites are not a good idea as covered in Pete's book.

    SL position is no longer write once run everywhere - that is the domain of HTML5.  But I never expected it to achieve that anyway.  Did you?

    You your two links are to SL applications (games, but nevertheless apps), not websites.  And I do think that is the correct positioning of SL: Great Internet Applications. GIA for the masses!

    Greg 

     

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 4:07 PM
  • Bing maps used to be Silverlight, and now it's not. Microsoft is truly saying one thing, but doing another thing entirely. I'd be STUNNED if a significant number of users were asking Bing to drop a VASTLY superior implementation just so they wouldn't have to install a plugin. Isn't Silverlight on 60% of machines now? Just how exactly is it going to reach Adobe's number when MICROSOFT WON'T EVEN USE IT ON THEIR OWN SITES. Heck, Silverlight.net doesn't even use Silverlight.

    They dropped support for an old ActiveX control, NOT Silverlight. One of the stated reasons they dropped the old ActiveX control is BECAUSE Silverlight is getting higher penetration. The Silverlight version of Bing maps is not going anywhere. Please read the actual Microsoft announcement, not the troll hackjob at Winrumors.

    (I really meant to ignore this thread, but I can't help myself.)

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 4:10 PM
  • It doesn't surprise me that Bing isn't going to use SL for maps.

    Would the old Microsoft find the LCD acceptable? Is it so difficult to do a premium implementation and a version for stone age browsers?

    LOB apps which is an envirnoment where SL on the desktop can usually be easily accomplished.

    LOB? You don't really need Silverlight for that at all. Sure, it's nice to be able code on the client in C#, but you can't justify a plugin for that alone. As a CTO if you came to me and said I want to do this in Silverlight, at this point I'd tell you you're crazy.

    all SL websites are not a good idea as covered in Pete's book.

    That's Pete's opinion. What's the point of doing a hodge podge mix match of technologies when one of them can do EVERYTHING better than the rest? HTML pages with their jumping around from page to page reloading the same HTML inefficiently is MORONIC. HTML 5 doesn't even attempt to address this. Silverlight WAS true separation of data and presentation that the HTML weanies and open source losers don't even begin to think about.

    SL position is no longer write once run everywhere - that is the domain of HTML5.  But I never expected it to achieve that anyway.  Did you?

    Let's see, it was billed as a cross platform browser plugin, and they even encouraged the work of the Moonlight team. My code ran on the Mac with ZERO issues. So yes, I did. There are five relevant platforms in the immediate future, Windows, Mac, WP7, iPhone, and Droid. Microsoft could EASILY be on the iPhone and Droid already. So basically they could have coverage of 99% of the users out there for the foreseeable future. They could even call up Google and say, "we see the problems you're having with Oracle, let's work something out for both our benefits."

    You your two links are to SL applications (games, but nevertheless apps), not websites.

    My site is currently down as I switch hosting providers. I'm not sure what distinction you are making. I switched my website to 100% Silverlight a while ago, although I haven't really worked on it recently due to time constraints.

    And I do think that is the correct positioning of SL: Great Internet Applications. GIA for the masses!

    You really are missing what is happening. They are NOT positioning Silverlight as a great internet application framework, they have clearly stated as much and their actions back it up. They are positioning HTML5 as the "great internet application" framework. Silverlight is their phone application framework, but perhaps only until HTML5 is brought up to speed. Silverlight is their, you need to stream video with DRM framework. I'm asking the following in all sincerity and not trying to be rude: How are you not seeing this?

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 4:35 PM
  • Jack, It doesn't surprise me that Bing isn't going to use SL for maps.  I wouldn't either if I were over that dept as Bing is positioned as a seach engine for the masses.  Then, it is an issue whether or not SL is installed on every desktop.  Every person I have seen speak up on this thread has mentioned SL in the context of LOB apps which is an envirnoment where SL on the desktop can usually be easily accomplished.

    It would surprise me greatly Greg. Mapping is one of the areas I do a lot of work in and going forward mapping is one of the primary places where Silverlight is going to be used. It isn't just Microsoft in this space, there is a lot of interest in Silverlight within the GIS community and I don't see HTML5 as really bringing much to that table.

    All of that is beside the point though, this discussion is based on a lie about Bing maps and I am puzzled why you two are still talking about it as if it were a fact. Is there a reason for that?

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 5:04 PM
  • All of that is beside the point though, this discussion is based on a lie about Bing maps and I am puzzled why you two are still talking about it as if it were a fact. Is there a reason for that?

    My bad Colin, I assumed that the fact was correct based on his post, when indeed it is not as you actually pointed out earlier and I forgot about!

    Greg

     

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 5:47 PM
  • You know, the crazy part of all of this is that it's all of us independent MS platform developers who see the value of Silverlight and not MS management apparently. And we are having to virtually scream at them to try and get them to understand the value of their own product. Crazy, I tell you.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 6:26 PM
  • Age old difference between technical people and business people.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:06 PM
  • A more in-depth analysis of the Silverlight/HTML5 situation.

    http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/11/silverlight-html5-and-microsofts-opaque-development-strategy.ars/

    What do you think?

    IMO, unlike other media articles I've seen, the arguments made by the author seems reasonable.  I'd have to say that I am thinking along similar line.

    In particular, what exactly is Microsoft's strategy for Silverlight outside of WP7 and desktop/WPF-integration?  Namely, the original web app strategy?

    To start with, let's say we now all agree that: (1) Silverlight is important to Microsoft, (2) Silverlight is the platform for WP7, (3) Silverlight is cross-platform, (4) Microsoft is still putting lots of resource into Silverlight.

    But still, you can kill/demote/de-emphasize Silverlight as the web RIA platform while saying all these with a straight face, since you can argue that: (1) Silverlight is important to Microsoft [because of WP7], (2) Silverlight is the platform for WP7, (3) Silverlight is cross-platform [as it works on desktop and phones], (4) Microsoft is still putting lots of resource into Silverlight [in the form of WP7 investment].

    Is the author correct in saying that Silverlight developers, who complained so loudly here and defended Silverlight in the comments of each and every journal articles, that we just didn't see through the obvious?

    I hope there is better answer than what Bob Muglia and Steve Ballmer laid out.  In light of what this article said, as well as some of the comments made here (e.g. by NTDeveloper), a stronger clarification is needed, in the form of a web-app-specific Silverlight roadmap, preferrably by Scottgu.  Developers who bought the Silverlight-web-app story may still be royally screwed, even when the future of Silverlight is still as bright as Microsoft proclaims it to be.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:16 PM
  • All of that is beside the point though, this discussion is based on a lie about Bing maps

    What's the lie? Bing Maps used to use Silverlight, not ActiveX, for maps. The video I included showed them touting that. They even had a Bing Silverlight Maps SDK (who knows about the future of that now?) Bing Maps is now a barely adequate, run of the mill HTML/AJAX, me too, horrific performing POS.

    Bing uses Flash for showing videos. If I (or Melinda Gates apparently) was CEO, there is no chance in hell Bing would be running Flash (with the possible exception if Silverlight didn't support the codec.)

    So, no Silverlight for videos, no Silverlight for mapping, and no Silverlight for anything else. It's like Microsoft distributing Wordperfect documents in the 90s. Way to support the team. If I were in the Silverlight.net group, I'd put a robots.txt file up that told bing.com to go away.

    So Silverlight is basically dead as a web browser plugin. Scott Guthrie's silence speaks volumes. I know he's on paternity leave, but apparently it isn't worth two minutes time to repair the damage with a simple blog post. Keep in mind, I'm not someone who wanted to see this happen, the amount of work I've put into Silverlight is obvious. If it weren't for WP7 it would be a complete waste. I doubt Microsoft will punt on that, but I could be wrong, the guys outside of Scott's division don't seem too bright.

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:35 AM
  • What is it you are afraid MS is going to do differently? I mean do you think they will somehow in the future purposefully make their plugin not work on some browsers? or do you think they will try to sabotage the mono team somehow? 


    I am just curious how you expect then to reach less than they were reaching before...


    the way I see it... mono is playing catchup... right now with silverlight 4 it is incredibly powerful and flexible with what you can do. By the time mono reaches parity with SL4.... then linux , Mac, even android, Windows phone 7, windows.... will all have quite a feature set. I even heard they got mono working on the iphone... 



    Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:44 AM
  • @jackbond,

    Your comment right here pretty much solidifies that any LUCID and SANE person should not listen to anything you say "Heck, Silverlight.net doesn't even use Silverlight."



    Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:35 AM
  • What's the lie? Bing Maps used to use Silverlight, not ActiveX, for maps. The video I included showed them touting that. They even had a Bing Silverlight Maps SDK (who knows about the future of that now?) Bing Maps is now a barely adequate, run of the mill HTML/AJAX, me too, horrific performing POS.

    There are (at least) three versions of Bing Maps. The original AJAX/HTML version, the Bing Maps 3D version which was a separate ActiveX plugin that had to be installed on the user's PC, and the Silverlight version.

    The announcement from yesterday was simply stating that the Bing Maps 3D control is being discontinued, one of the reasons given for discontinuing the plug-in is that Silverlight's install base is large enough now that supporting their own plug-in doesn't make any sense.

    They also announced that the HTML/AJAX version is getting better birds eye abilities and used a screenshot of the Silverlight version to show what they think it will look like. So:

    1) An old ActiveX plug-in is being discontinued since Silverlight version can do the job better without having to install a separate plug-in
    2) The HTML/AJAX version of the map is getting better birds eye support

    Scott Guthrie isn't being silent, he was at Devconnections this week and told everyone that Silverlight is far from dead. He already did a video a few weeks ago saying Silverlight isn't dead, and basically saying the same thing Bob Muglia said. For that matter, I basically said the same thing Bob Muglia said on my own blog before PDC happened.

     Edit: Why do I only ever see the typos after I have hit post?

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:35 AM
  • That's Pete's opinion.

    Which we can all say is automatically the equivalent of a best practice ;)

    And, for the record, Silverlight.net most certainly does use Silverlight. We use it for all the media players on the site, as well as for the showcase. Things that should be HTML/JS are HTML/JS

    Pete

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:45 AM
  • I know he's on paternity leave, but apparently it isn't worth two minutes time to repair the damage with a simple blog post.

    Dude, ScottGu did two keynotes during his paternity leave, once of which had Silverlight content in there and an unambiguous message about Silverlight's future.

    Scott's boss's boss (Bob Muglia) came out with a post saying that we're behind both Silverlight and HTML5, clarifying his earlier statements. Why does Scott need to come out and say more? Uncool to make this personal.

    I'll also say that I work with a TON of very smart people in Microsoft. Yes, they absolutely do exist outside of ScottGu's org :)

    Pete

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:50 AM
  • Hey guys, no personal attacks or I'm going to start deleting posts. Keep it about the issues you're debating.

    Pete

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:52 AM
  • Your comment right here pretty much solidifies that any LUCID and SANE person should not listen to anything you say

    Ok, resort to personal attacks, that's fine. Other than the showcase, where is Silverlight on Silverlight.net? Let's go to the community tab. If I worked on Silverlight.net, I'd implement a duplex wcf app where I could see people logging in. From there, I might have a master chat room to showcase how nifty it is that I can have an efficient chat without inefficiently pinging the server. I'd also do away with a bunch of the HTML links and have a nice Silverlight container for them. The community recognition would also be a nice silverlight app. The hall of fame would DEFINITELY be Silverlight so I wouldn't have to REFRESH the entire page just to get the next 25 names.

    Ok, lets move on the the Learn tab. Yep, the entire page could be Silverlight, but all I see is boring HTML. Ok, I've clicked samples, do I get to see any Silverlight yet? Oh, what's this, I see "Most Recent" and "Top Rated." But wait, I get redirect to ANOTHER HTML page. Really nice usage of Silverlight and its navigation framework!!! I could go on.

    If you disagree with my analysis, feel free, but as a showcase site for Silverlight, Silverlight.net is a complete failure.

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:53 AM
  • If you disagree with my analysis, feel free, but as a showcase site for Silverlight, Silverlight.net is a complete failure.

    It's not a showcase site, it's the community site. Back when we used to prompt you for Silverlight installation when you hit the site, we got no end of complaints from people who wanted to learn about Silverlight but hadn't yet installed it.

    "Boring old HTML" is how the web works. We use Silverlight when it makes sense, not just use it for the sake of using it.

    Pete

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:01 AM
  • and the Silverlight version

    The Silverlight version is GONE. That's my point. IT"S GONE!!! DEAD. IT HAS BEEN REPLACED. The ActiveX removal is a separate issue. The ONLY usage now for Silverlight maps and Bing is as a WP7 application. The Silverlight version of Bing Maps for PCs and MACs (as a browser plugin) is NO MORE. If I am wrong on this, please provide me a URL. I've re-read the article. It's as dead as Julius Caesar. 

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:01 AM
  • and the Silverlight version

    The Silverlight version is GONE. That's my point. IT"S GONE!!! DEAD. IT HAS BEEN REPLACED. The ActiveX removal is a separate issue. The ONLY usage now for Silverlight maps and Bing is as a WP7 application. The Silverlight version of Bing Maps for PCs and MACs (as a browser plugin) is NO MORE. If I am wrong on this, please provide me a URL. I've re-read the article. It's as dead as Julius Caesar. 

    Here is the original article:

    http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/11/02/changes-to-bird-s-eye-and-3d-maps.aspx

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:05 AM
  • Hi,

    The Silverlight version of Bing Maps is at http://www.bing.com/maps/explore, as it has always be.

    I would like to reiterate the appeal I gave on my blog to restore the sanity. Screaming and panicking does not make much sense at this point. We have all had a rough few days, but now is a good time to pause, take a deep breath and start (or continue) to work on awesome applications.

    Cheers,

    Laurent

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:36 AM
  • It's not a showcase site, it's the community site.

    Call me crazy, but I think it should be both.

    "Boring old HTML" is how the web works.

    An old clunker and a Ferrari will both get me from A to B, so yes, they both "work." The web of HTML is horrifically inefficient and quite ugly. Silverlight was partially meant to change that. The only message I'm hearing from Microsoft these days is, "Use Silverlight, but only when HTML can't possibly do the job."

    We use Silverlight when it makes sense, not just use it for the sake of using it.

    When browsers have the sufficiently implemented HTML 5's video tag are you going to get rid of Silverlight for those too? The strategy has truly shifted. With this new strategy in mind, Microsoft never would have added things like the navigation framework or the RichTextBox control. The new focus is pretty much, "only what you can't do in HTML." The old approach encapsulated so much more in that, it was about what you can do and HOW you can do it. There's no databinding in HTML 5. There's no C#. There's no LINQ. There's no threading. I liked that I could do web programming with awesome Microsoft languages and tools. Telling Microsoft developers to, "do what you can in HTML" is like a punch in the face. You guys should step back a bit and go "wait a minute... this is seriously loyal Microsoft/Silverlight developer and he's saying he's DONE? Maybe we've underestimated this." You have. I'm a bit more vocal than some, but I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this way.

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:38 AM
  • @jackbond

    Step back for a moment. This site was created when Silverlight 1 and 2 were originally released. I've never recommended rewriting something (within MS or without) unless there were a compelling business need. Silverlight is not for web sites, but it certainly is for web applications and business applications today.

    There is a ton of stuff in Silverlight that lets you take advantage of the best that the web has had to offer (navigation for one) and integrate nicely into the expected web patterns. You can then, as you pointed out, go much futher with it given the tools you have. We're not taking that away. What we're doing is accepting that HTML5 is a part of the future, and just as Silverlight took over some things previously done in WPF and Windows Forms, and the internet has taken over some things previously done on a TV, HTML5 will take over some things previously done in Silverlight. It's the nature of technology. Microsoft can either embrace that and help .NET developers make the most of their investment in languages and skills, or we can ignore it and get left behind.

    This thread is going in circles. While everyone is free to continue the discussion, I'm not sure there's any additional value being added. We're not abandoning Silverlight.

    Pete

    PS. As a complete aside: jQuery has data binding. It was MS-proposed and finally approved a couple months back as I recall. Not the same as Silverlight/WPF data binding, but just wanted to point that out. I believe HTML5/JS have a threading model as part of the spec. Don't quote me on that though.

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:54 AM
  • There is a ton of stuff in Silverlight that lets you take advantage of the best that the web has had to offer (navigation for one) and integrate nicely into the expected web patterns. You can then, as you pointed out, go much futher with it given the tools you have. We're not taking that away.

    Pete,

    I can't speak for Jack or others, but what I quoted you as saying was something that was asked, directly or indirectly, many times on this forum.

    The original concern was: Did Microsoft kill Silverlight?  The answer, we learned after 3 nail-biting days, is no

    The second concern was: Did Microsoft kill Silverlight as a web-app platform?  At least I was not able to get a straight answer on this, and statements like "Microsoft invests in Silverlight", "Silverlight is the core strategy", "we are not abandoning Silverlight" etc, don't seem to eliminate the doubt (explained in my previous post).

    So assuming what you made is an official Microsoft position, then I take that the answer to the second concern is no.  Thank you for that.  This is the first straight answer I see.  If you still think, "why the fuss?"  Please understand that the community is antsy.  We have invested lots of time and energy in Silverlight and don't want to see that vaporize in an instance.

    This whole saga reminds me of the a variant of the "Dead Baby" joke.  A woman just gave birth.  While trying to catch her breath, the doctor, standing at the far end of the bed, made a Hail Mary posture and threw the baby to the woman like a football while yelling "catch him!"  The woman was stunned, and missed the baby.  While in shock, she heard the doctor said, "ha ha ha, April's fool, it's just a doll!  Your baby's with the nurse.  See, no harm's done".

    Joke aside, as I said before, the best cure is a reassuring dose of Silverlight 5 roadmap and timeline.

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:44 AM
  • More for us...

    Reading many posts by SL developers that state they are running away from SL makes us kind of happy, that means more business for us. We will gladly take the 5% market share that WP7 brings, not to mention the possiblities of XBOX as yet another market and on top of that the ability to write small footprint rich business applications that for the first time since window forms delivers on true RAD.

    GO Silverlight, it is the best thing ever!

     

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:17 AM
  • that means more business for us.

    I can guarantee you'd have a lock on the development of OS/2 applications as well. :) Developers abandoning a platform is never a good thing.

    not to mention the possiblities of XBOX as yet another market

    XBOX? If they were to announce a Silverlight XBOX runtime with support for Kinect then none of us would be worried. That would be an unbelievably strong sign of commitment. The lack of XBOX support is one of the things that has made me question their commitment. Having worked in XAML, you simply don't want to go back to UI programming in anything else. It's a total mystery to me why they don't have a WPF/Silverlight strategy for the XBOX yet. 

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 6:05 AM
  • @jackbond,

    You are pretty much discrediting urself by arguing that Silverlight does not exist on the site and keep repeating the Bing Maps non-news when everyone is telling you are wrong.  Now you are getting into a theory argument about HTML vs Silverlight and where it should be used.

    Take Laurent's advise and just chill a little and go back to Silverlight development :)

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 8:23 AM
  • Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:59 AM
  • I kind of agree where jack is going on the sense that I want to see silverlight not just for web apps... but for some web sites as well. Certainly not every site should be silverlight but it can really be a good thing.


    Right now... there are some sites entirely done in Flash... and I believe they offer a superior experience than what HTML could deliver. Think of OMGpop for example.. yes it is a gaming site but even the non - gaming aspects are all done in flash.


    Basically there are some things that SL can do that HTML 5 I believe CANT ever.  For instance....... load up a tab control on a silverlight page... and switch tabs. Notice how the rest of the page doesn't reload? That is beautiful and seamless. Can HTML 5 ever deliver that? (im not sure about this actually)


    Take another example... Say you want a user to upload an image. Can HTML rencode the image and make it a more efficient size before it even reaches the server? Nope but silverlight can do it.


    IMO full silverlight web sites are a good thing......... in addition to web apps. 


    The tricky part though is coding one that feels fast because everything you do seems to add to the xap size. Basically the best sites I believe are going to be ones that dynamically load other xaps... take advantage of local storage and all of that to make everything load faster.


    Think about this: If SL had huge marketshare... and SL loaded really fast... then there isn't really a good reason why you shouldn't use SL if that is what you like to code in

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 11:38 AM
  • I would like to wrap up my part in the discussion with the following:

    I still don't feel a meaningful vision has been offerred that explains Silverlight's status as a browser plugin. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I embraced Silverlight early on because it provides a significantly better way to develop web applications - both from a development and UX perspective - than the traditional ASP.Net/HTML/Javascript approach. I suspect though that one of the reasons this "strategy has shifted" fiasco has evoked such strong sentiments is because Silverlight developers can't imagine going back to primitive Web 1.0 technologies (call it HTML 5, 6, or whatever you want, its still just HTML with a few more features; there is nothing revolutionary about it). As I said previously, if we are to see the demise of Silverlight as a browser plugin, assuming the abscence of a comparably rich and coherent development framework, I have no interest in remaining in the "web application" space and will instead focus on server-side tech. I would almost rather count beans for a living that write HTML +  JS. It's not Silverlight that I'm necessarily attached to though, but rather, the development paradigms that it enables. I've been an MS-centric developer for pretty much most of my career as one might surmise from my somewhat dated handle. So, of course, if MS provides a "standards based" web development environment/platform that meets or exceeds the functionality/experience available in Silverlight I'll be happy to look at it. But if it doesn't have real data binding, support good architectural practices like MVVM /Command Pattern /etc or forces me to write javascript to manipulate the DOM then its a non-starter.

    Peace Out.

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:58 PM
  • Think about this: If SL had huge marketshare... and SL loaded really fast... then there isn't really a good reason why you shouldn't use SL if that is what you like to code in

    and there is now? 

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:08 PM
  • ou are pretty much discrediting urself by arguing that Silverlight does not exist on the site

    I didn't mean to say they didn't use it entirely, simply that they don't use it much. I believe as the official Silverlight community site it should use it extensively, both as a showcase and as evidence of dogfooding. For example, right now, there's no TinyMCE equivalent for the Silverlight RichTextBox (at least that I know of.) If the forums here were implemented in Silverlight there might be more of an impetus for that. Now some people say, the forums shouldn't be in Silverlight. I guess they have a more limited view of what Silverlight should be used for. There are some of us who think, if I don't have to touch HTML EVER, I'm not going to. I think the appeal of Silverlight for a lot of us is that we truly despise the horrific mess that is the HTML/Javascript/CSS/"Just import 56 trillion different JavaScript libraries to get the job done" stack. This is especially true for intranet sites where developers might have a WPF application that they are tired of deploying and Silverlight works perfectly. If Silverlight as a web browser plugin is getting downplayed, this is a big problem for them.

    keep repeating the Bing Maps non-news

    Thanks to whoever it was who finally posted the link to the Silverlight version of maps. It's not the default view and I believe it used to be. I couldn't find it, after searching around a bit, so I figured it was gone. I was wrong on that.

    just chill a little and go back to Silverlight development

    To everyone saying "just chill", I suggest you grab a cup of coffee and go over and actually read the comments to Muglia's "clarification".

    http://team.silverlight.net/announcement/pdc-and-silverlight/

    There are lots of posts from yesterday which echo what I've been saying here. It's pretty clear that the statement hasn't really satisfied a lot of developers, and if it hasn't satisfied them, then it definitely hasn't satisfied a lot of their bosses. That's kind of a problem.

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:12 PM
  • If the forums here were implemented in Silverlight


    The forums of other RIA / Rich UI frameworks like Sencha ExtJs (and that's merely component-oriented JavaScript) are just plain HTML as well. But they have demo applications to show how such a forum could be presented with such a framework.

    Such examples with real live data would be a good idea for the Silverlight site too. So one could decide which version they'd like more.

    Ah yes, and I'd definitely vote for the Silverlight Rich Text Editor in the forums too instead of this tiny MCE ***. I've been saying for years that this is something where browser plug-ins could really shine.

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:45 PM
  • Now that there are no plans for silverlight as an internet platform, Microsoft should push silverlight as an update for Windows operating system.

    That would be a consolation price for old silverlight developes.

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:42 PM
  • @jackbond,


    Silverlight doesn't have to be used for everything.  I have a blog which is ASP.NET.  I have a companion site to my two books that I released (silverlightbusinessintelligence.com) that I just started re-writing in ASP.NET MVC.

    I am also working on a large project (personal side thing) that is almost 100% ASP.NET MVC.  Why?  Because general web with basic features doesn't need Silverlight.

    If you follow what I blog about and my 2 books...Silverlight is  great fit for business intelligence 2.0: interactive, real-time data, rich data visualizations, instant feed back, simpler tools/self-service for end users.

    silverlight.net (beyond 100% silverlight content) has a nice showcase and all the videos are in Silverlight encoding.  The rich text box would be a nice add.  You want the message forum in Silverlight as well?  That would be overkill.

    Thursday, November 04, 2010 6:28 PM
  • If SL is truly to be used for LOB apps only, why not just make the WPF libs more accessable?  There is no need for SL if it is going to be for fat pipe apps only.

    Silverlight is in fact dead.  This is a sad day.



    Thursday, November 04, 2010 7:15 PM
  • Because general web with basic features doesn't need Silverlight.

    The world doesn't NEED third generation languages. We could all be programming in assembly which would be really great because nobody would need to install bloated runtimes like .NET. (I don't actually believe the .NET runtime is bloated, just making a point.)

    You want the message forum in Silverlight as well?  That would be overkill.

    Really? How long did it take silverlight.net to support Chrome? Can you give a 99.999% guarantee that the forums won't be broken again in the next rev of Chrome, or Firefox, or IE9? You say its overkill, but forums are an application aren't they? So if forums aren't appropriate, why isn't anything but DRM videos appropriate? Again, I don't believe this. I'm just pointing out that what YOU think is appropriate for Silverlight, someone else might disagree and say, do it in HTML. Again, I'll emphasize what a lot of other people have said as well... it's not just WHAT were building, but HOW we build it that we care about. WE HATE HTML. The argument you are making is basically Silverlight is nothing more than a stop gap until HTML 5 is complete. A lot of us don't view it that way. Silverlight IS the solution, and no committee will EVER come up with something as good.

    If I had to choose between Microsoft discontinuing IE or Silverlight, I would say with no hesitation, discontinue IE. What strategic value is it anyway? It used to have added value because Microsoft didn't care about standards. That's what made it a great browser. You could build things with it that you couldn't with other inferior products. The new Microsoft cares about appeasing people who hate Microsoft. We want the old Microsoft back. The open source crowd is going to hate you no matter what you do, so you might as well make us happy.


    Friday, November 05, 2010 12:16 AM
  • You want the message forum in Silverlight as well?  That would be overkill.

    Actually we tried to create message forum in silverlight and now I agree with you. You can see it at http://www.getmessageboard.com/. This app is very simplified version of what we wanted to do (for example we plan to add full wysiwyg text editor) but you've got the idea.

    The main problem is that you also need html version of the same content (for SEO, mobile devices etc) and if you have html version - what reason to duplicate all job in silverlight. Silverlight Rich Text control is also had very limited compared to html text engine.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 12:16 AM
  • GO Silverlight, it is the best thing ever!

    May be, after this "strategy shift" they'll add all features we need for real-life business applications instead of worring about plugin loading size? Personally I don't care if it's 5Mb or 10Mb download - I'll prefer to have features like vector-printing, true hardware acceleration of all 2D graphics, more powerful reach text engine etc.

    If this is the case then this "strategy shift" is good thing

    Friday, November 05, 2010 12:30 AM
  • I agree with jack that SL could make a good forum. I see that one linked above and I am not sure it is designed well from a usability standpoint......... no offense. Cool idea though.


    Btw... from what I have read SEO search engine optimization is possible with silverlight it just takes extra work......... right?

    Friday, November 05, 2010 12:32 AM
  • Now, here's the latest clarification from Scott Guthrie.

    http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/11/04/silverlight-questions.aspx

    Friday, November 05, 2010 12:40 AM
  • Scott Guthrie has weighed in on Silverlight.

    http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/11/04/silverlight-questions.aspx

    It's a nice clear post indicating support for and investment in Silverlight.

    Pete

    Friday, November 05, 2010 12:40 AM
  • Make no mistake, Silverlight is dead for a lot of the things we associate it with today.  Microsoft is the messenger, a poor one, at least in the delivery, but only the messenger.

    The reasons are clear, and all you need to do is connect the dots.

    There is a competition for the best way to program DEVICES, not PC's.  In that arena plugins, are not in the cards, and I'm including Windows Phone. 

    This is all happening because it's the only way to beat Apple!  In the old PC days, they got beat because their hardware/software combo was priced much higher than the PC.  Microsoft didn't beat Apple back then, IBM did, by delivering a PC standard that drove price down.

    That situation doesn't exist anymore, the real cost of the device is out of the control of both Apple and Microsoft, it lies with the carriers, so they can't drive the real cost down.

    So how does Microfost beat Apple and Google?  While I think Windows Phone is better than both in a lot of ways, 10-20% better doesn't change a market dynamic.  Even though Microsoft has a ton of developers, the actual number is really small in terms of people that know HTML.

    The key to getting the upper hand in devices is to have the largest army of developers, with the lowest cost of entry, again HTML.  HTML alone isn't capable of delivering the goods, so how do you make the platform work?  Well, it's back to the future...

    Devices + (HTML5 + Proprietary Extensions) = A Fully Powered Device Development Platform

    No plugins required, and for the first time in a long time only partial standards are required, just enough to get what you need, then it's proprietary all the way down.

    Here's what's likely to happen.

    Microsoft will deliver, for devices, a HTML 5 browser that does OOB, with access to the devices hardware and file system, with some level of security.  Why would Microsoft do this?  Well, with HTML 5 as the development platform, you're not limited to SL developers, you have every developer on the planet delivering for your Device, and that spells success.

    The talking heads won't tell you this, and you'll hear that Silverlight is very important, and that will be 100% true.  The only thing you'll have to figure out is if it's going to be important to you.

    There are still going to be a lot of enterprise apps that work well with Silverlight, and any complex Admin sites work well too.  In addition, there will be apps that complement websites that will always be better in Silverlight. Unfortunately, that's not the "WPF/E" vision originally sold, but it's the reality.

    So how important Silverlight is going forward, depends on your business model.  As Michael said in the Godfather, it's business, not personal.

    Good Luck!

    Friday, November 05, 2010 1:07 AM
  • So you are saying that the more developers the platform has that will be the key factor....... but did you consider that Silverlight (WP7) is based on .NET which has a huge amount of developers?

    Friday, November 05, 2010 1:25 AM
  • @jackbond,


    Silverlight doesn't have to be used for everything.   You want the message forum in Silverlight as well?  That would be overkill.

    Why not? Forum reading on a phone is awful and I wonder how many people do that. On phones HTML is not used for apps and native phone apps have become the default. Apple tried first with browser based HTML apps on their iPhone and it failed miserably.

    Silverlight is easier development, better featured and has no page reload nonsense and works on 99% of devices which users would use to read forums.

    I also don't understand this "islands of functionality" scenario. Why have HTML in the page at all if the site/app wont do anything without silverlight. It's far simpler to have it all in one technology.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 5:15 AM
  • I totally agree.  That is one of the reasons that the Muglia statement is so depressing.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 7:11 AM
  • @jackbond,


    Silverlight doesn't have to be used for everything.   You want the message forum in Silverlight as well?  That would be overkill.

    Why not? Forum reading on a phone is awful and I wonder how many people do that. On phones HTML is not used for apps and native phone apps have become the default. Apple tried first with browser based HTML apps on their iPhone and it failed miserably.

    Silverlight is easier development, better featured and has no page reload nonsense and works on 99% of devices which users would use to read forums.

    I also don't understand this "islands of functionality" scenario. Why have HTML in the page at all if the site/app wont do anything without silverlight. It's far simpler to have it all in one technology.

     

    Totally agree
    MS can push SL as not only primary web app development platform, but as primary application development platform too. But of course, they also should work hard on HTML5. MS has all the needed resources for that. 
    To be honest, I prefer SL over HTML + JS + CSS in all aspects. If I wanted to be a cross platform developer, I'd not bet on Microsoft :)

    P.S. but it's always nice to know that your software can run under different platforms, but not at the price of writing in HTML 

    Friday, November 05, 2010 7:46 AM
  • I am a little bit confused about something.... In scott guthries post : "Client Apps (both inside and outside the browser) - with a particular emphasis on enterprise business applications"


    isn't any silverlight website that you write for the web technically a client app since it is run on the browser of the client? 

    When they say particular emphasis on the enterprise based solutions does that mean they don't care about the other client solutions such as... say a gaming website or... just a rich web page?

    Friday, November 05, 2010 10:23 AM
  • See Web Client Section:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Desktop_and_laptop_computers

    Bottom Line:

    Windows: 88.40%
    Mac OS: 6.82%

    95.22% says it all!

    Just fix the TEXT CLARITY!! Issue :)

    Friday, November 05, 2010 11:11 AM
  • I am a little bit confused about something.... In scott guthries post : "Client Apps (both inside and outside the browser) - with a particular emphasis on enterprise business applications"


    isn't any silverlight website that you write for the web technically a client app since it is run on the browser of the client? 

    When they say particular emphasis on the enterprise based solutions does that mean they don't care about the other client solutions such as... say a gaming website or... just a rich web page?

    I think the best example to clear up the confusion is that something like www.justinangel.net would be an example of a web site built in Silverlight. Something like the Silverlight version of Bing maps would be considered a web application.

    Personally, I have always thought that Justin's 100% Silverlight blog was a great example of why not to build 100% Silverlight applications. There is a lot of how the web works that just doesn't work on Justin's blog. Hitting the space bar doesn't to a page down, I can't right click open in new tab, etc. There is a lot of UX stuff that you expect a website to have that a 100% Silverlight page simply doesn't have.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 11:17 AM
  • There is a lot of how the web works that just doesn't work on Justin's blog. Hitting the space bar doesn't to a page down, I can't right click open in new tab, etc. There is a lot of UX stuff that you expect a website to have that a 100% Silverlight page simply doesn't have.

    So it's up to Microsoft to correct these missing features for Silverlight when it's running in the browser. That's the advantage of not developing a technology using a standards body, quick turnaround of features. Would it be easier to build these features into Silverlight or push everyone into using HTML5 which is not even implemented yet or complete as a standard (due 2020)?

    Friday, November 05, 2010 11:33 AM
  • I am a little bit confused about something.... In scott guthries post : "Client Apps (both inside and outside the browser) - with a particular emphasis on enterprise business applications"


    isn't any silverlight website that you write for the web technically a client app since it is run on the browser of the client? 

    When they say particular emphasis on the enterprise based solutions does that mean they don't care about the other client solutions such as... say a gaming website or... just a rich web page?

    Notig,

    I think Scott was referring to the plugin-based Silverlight when he said "Client App", not as a contrast to "Server App" (not that there is such a thing) but as a contrast to "Apps that run on Device" (e.g. Silverlight on WP7).

    Emphasis on enterprise business applications means that if they have to allocate resource between various features, they would choose business-oriented ones such as WCF, MVVM, etc, over others such as 3D, peripheral support, etc.

    That's my interpretation.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 12:12 PM
  • Well, actually hitting spacebar does scroll on my pc :P
    And right clicking is a problem really, I don't think there could be an easy way of doing that. but if we take HTML + CSS + JS development as a problem, right click issue, compared to the problem mentioned above is really nothing, absoloutelly nothing:D 

    Friday, November 05, 2010 12:12 PM
  • May be, after this "strategy shift" they'll add all features we need for real-life business applications instead of worring about plugin loading size? Personally I don't care if it's 5Mb or 10Mb download - I'll prefer to have features like vector-printing, true hardware acceleration of all 2D graphics, more powerful reach text engine etc.

    If this is the case then this "strategy shift" is good thing

     

    Yes, and push silverlight as a Windows update to increase adoption rate.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 12:26 PM
  • What we have here is a fundamental conflict between the desire for standards (although how anyone can call HTML a standard is beyond me since even simple stuff renders differently in different browsers) versus the desire for productivity. Given enough time, resources, and patience, you could create and maintain just about any piece of software using just about any environment and tools.  However, creating increasingly complex RIAs with the brain dead HTML/CSS/Javascript/4 million libraries stack strains the time constraints and resources that companies have and exceeds the patience of  professional developers used to working with even modestly productive development environments. Silverlight should be more correctly called Silverbullet because it massively overdelivers on the productivity and capability needed to create RIAs. If standards are a problem, why not just turn the future definition of Silverlight over to a standards body like Netscape did with Javascript and whoever did with HTML? Then the standards people would have their objections undercut and those of us who actually do development could get on with our work.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 3:26 PM
  • Hitting the space bar doesn't to a page down, I can't right click open in new tab, etc. There is a lot of UX stuff that you expect a website to have that a 100% Silverlight page simply doesn't have.

    So basically your argument is that Silverlight shouldn't have hyperlink and scrollviewer objects? After all, what you're really unhappy about is that their default behavior doesn't 100% match some web browser behaviors. This is exactly why Silverlight.net should be using Silverlight more extensively, so issues like this can be discovered and the team can address it.

    Quite frankly, the message is all over the place now. Scott says, build applications with it. Lots of other people are saying, no no no, build islands with it. I've always felt Microsoft has beaten around the bush saying, "Silverlight isn't meant to replace HTML." Well, then why have they given me every possible control (and more) so that I can basically replace HTML. At this point, the only control that's missing is a flow document (and even that can be worked around a bit.) There are clearly a lot of Microsoft .NET developers who despise HTML so much, that the only way they are going to do web work (on the front end) is if Silverlight exists. The situation reminds me of how the pentagon started building really powerful airplanes under the impression that dogfighting was a thing of the past. Well, once the pilots got their hands on them, guess what, they kept on dogfighting. It would be really great if the Silverlight team kept giving us more stuff, 3d, droid and xbox support, flow document, etc and let us decide how to use it.

    I checked out Justin's site. Currently the tab does scroll down a bit, and now that it has been brought to his attention, I'm guessing he'll add a context menu to his hyperlinks. :)

    Friday, November 05, 2010 4:03 PM
  • However, creating increasingly complex RIAs with the brain dead HTML/CSS/Javascript/4 million libraries stack strains the time constraints and resource that companies have and exceeds the patience of  professional developers

    Thank you, unless you are using Silverlight for HD videos and animations exclusively HTML5 is a non issue, there is zero comparisson to the wealth of features and abilities that the Silverlight framework bring to software development. Javascript will forever be a script language with zero concept of object orientation or complex design patterns. HTML5 will welcome you back to the world of page refreshes, rubbish like Ajax and things that end up being a nightmare to maintain and cost companies 10 times more to develop.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 4:23 PM
  • What we have here is a fundamental conflict between the desire for standards (although how anyone can call HTML a standard is beyond me since even simple stuff renders differently in different browsers) versus the desire for productivity. Given enough time, resources, and patience, you could create and maintain just about any piece of software using just about any environment and tools.  However, creating increasingly complex RIAs with the brain dead HTML/CSS/Javascript/4 million libraries stack strains the time constraints and resource that companies have and exceeds the patience of  professional developers used to working with even modestly productive development environments. Silverlight should be more correctly call Silverbullet because it massively overdelivers on the productivity and capability needed to create RIAs. If standards are a problem, why not just turn the future definition of Silverlight over to a standards body like Netscape did with Javascript and whoever did with HTML? Then the standards people would have their objections undercut and those of us who actually do development could get on with our work.

    Wow that is a great post. I agree 100% except for the part about turning it over to a "Standards Body".

    Silverlight has moved as fast as it has because it does not go through that process.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 4:43 PM
  • Silverlight has moved as fast as it has because it does not go through that process.

    Yes, you are right about that, but now that Silverlight is starting to mature and the pace of new releases is slowing it seems like it would be the right time to make such a move in order to get it more widely adopted. That's pretty much when other things get handed off to standards bodies. Just sayin'.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 4:56 PM
  • but now that Silverlight is starting to mature and the pace of new releases is slowing it seems like it would be the right time to make such a move in order to get it more widely adopted. That's pretty much when other things get handed off to standards bodies.

    Yes, you make a good point.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 5:02 PM
  • but now that Silverlight is starting to mature and the pace of new releases is slowing it seems like it would be the right time to make such a move in order to get it more widely adopted.

    Standard bodies are where things go to die. The HTML committee has over 500 people on it, which is one of the reasons it's a joke. As another person pointed out, Silverlight's cross platform reach covers over 95% of desktops. If someone isn't adopting Silverlight because it isn't a standard, there's a 99% possibility they are using that as an excuse. Some people just hate Microsoft because Windows 3.1 crashed on them in 1994 and still haven't gotten over it. Nothing you can do about it, but trying to appease them by turning Silverlight over to a standards body isn't going to help. 

    Friday, November 05, 2010 5:06 PM
  • Justin's blog seems like it has some issues... For instance why does it take so long to load even though he is using frameworks like Prism that are supposed to help modularize it? Or are the frameworks themselves the reason for the bloat?


    Also if you click "about me" then go to click "home".. it takes about 10-15 seconds to go back home.


    That site seems to have alot of issues........



    Friday, November 05, 2010 5:08 PM
  • Standard bodies are where things go to die.

    If that were always true, we wouldn't be having this discussion because HTML and Javascript would be worm food. Sadly, that's not the case.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 5:11 PM
  • we wouldn't be having this discussion because HTML and Javascript would be worm food

    If you compare the rate of progress of HTML to everything else in the industry, it sure seems like worm food. It's like watching a 95 year old trying to win the Boston Marathon. In the 3.5 years that Silverlight has been out Microsoft has taken it from scratch to basically leap frogging HTML by two or three generations. For example, is the HTML 5 committee even trying to add syntax for animations to html, or are they expecting people to do it in Javascript? This is obviously a side discussion, but if software goes into committee, it's in a bad place. Obviously HTML isn't "dead", but to WPF/Silverlight programmers, working in HTML is like working in assembly. You can get the job done, but it aint gonna be elegant.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 5:57 PM
  • working in HTML is like working in assembly

    That's exactly right, except assembly has fewer things to keep track of.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 6:04 PM
  • Earlier in the week I cancelled my order for Pro Silverlight 4 in C# and ordered Pro HTML5 Programming: Powerful APIs for Richer Internet Application Development. After spending a few hours with Pro HTML5 Programming: Powerful APIs for Richer Internet Application Development I reordered Pro Silverlight 4 in C# earlier this week.

    The rest of my thoughts after a week of this mess:
    http://realworldsa.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/architecturallyhowdeadissilverlight.htm

    Sunday, November 07, 2010 3:19 PM
  • Personally, I have always thought that Justin's 100% Silverlight blog was a great example of why not to build 100% Silverlight applications. There is a lot of how the web works that just doesn't work on Justin's blog. Hitting the space bar doesn't to a page down, I can't right click open in new tab, etc. There is a lot of UX stuff that you expect a website to have that a 100% Silverlight page simply doesn't have.

    That's true, and whose fault is that?  I've long complained that Silverlight lacks a lot of behavior that people expect in HTML apps, but it falls on deaf ears.

    Also, when PageMaker came out, it was possible to do really great documents.  Actually, the same thing occured when Word Processors came out.

    Would you judge the tool based on a end users use of fonts and colors?  Of course not, so why are you judging what SL can do based on one site?

    Colin, you're probably a great guy, but you're so biased that you only look for reasons to support your chosen position, while ignoring an entire world of facts, simply because they conflict with your world view.

    Most people with a product would be egar to make it competitive with anything out there.  I don't fault the SL Team, or the evangelist, they've done a GREAT job, they just need management support.

    Sunday, November 07, 2010 4:45 PM
  • What we have here is a fundamental conflict between the desire for standards (although how anyone can call HTML a standard is beyond me since even simple stuff renders differently in different browsers) versus the desire for productivity. Given enough time, resources, and patience, you could create and maintain just about any piece of software using just about any environment and tools.  However, creating increasingly complex RIAs with the brain dead HTML/CSS/Javascript/4 million libraries stack strains the time constraints and resources that companies have and exceeds the patience of  professional developers used to working with even modestly productive development environments. Silverlight should be more correctly called Silverbullet because it massively overdelivers on the productivity and capability needed to create RIAs. If standards are a problem, why not just turn the future definition of Silverlight over to a standards body like Netscape did with Javascript and whoever did with HTML? Then the standards people would have their objections undercut and those of us who actually do development could get on with our work.

    Maybe not a standards body, but it would go a long way if Microsoft and Adobe got together and came up with some standards for RIA's that both Flash/Flex and Silverlight implemented.

    Failing that, I would just be happy with an HTML standard that allowed language swapping.  With that ability, the browser could swap out Javascript for the .Net Framework, so we could use any supported language.  The problem is that it wouldn't be cross platform enough, so what's a better solution?

    Well, enter Silverlight... Without the GUI!  Silverlight has a subset of the .Net Framework, sufficient to do everything you need in web based applications, and it runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux.

    Interesting, but who knows.  I'm just doing something you're not supposed to do in a stiff wind, and it's producing yellow rain(lol).

    Sunday, November 07, 2010 4:58 PM
  • Colin, you're probably a great guy, but you're so biased that you only look for reasons to support your chosen position, while ignoring an entire world of facts, simply because they conflict with your world view.

    Everyone, I really am bailing out of this conversation now. One person asked what the difference was between a web site and a web application, I tried to answer, and suddenly I am biased for trying to answer the question.

    Justin's blog is one of the few fully Silverlight websites I know of so I used it as an example to try and answer the question and to try and explain why anyone would see a difference. Should Microsoft be trying to add functionality to Silverlight to make Justin's blog work like any other website? I have no opinion on that. I don't create websites, I create LOB applications using Silverlight. For the sectors of Silverlight that I work in, there are no problems, Silverlight isn't dead, etc.

    So, if you do want to create web sites using 100% Silverlight and you want to lobby Microsoft to say you still want that, then all power to you and if you ever got the impression from me that I think you are wrong, I apologise because quite franky I have no horse in that race either way. Ok, if someone was pushing me to create a website for them I would be very tempted to write it in Silverlight because I hate dealing with Javascript and HTML as much as you do.

    Monday, November 08, 2010 1:31 AM
  • One last departing thought from me as well, if 95% of websites in the world are HTML websites and it is so wonderful to reach all platforms then why am I only able to view maybe 1% of them on my mobile. You still need to code a HTML version for the desktop and a HTML version for a small factor screen (mobile). Here is a site (still beta) that we did in SL and the client loves it: http://www.turnerjewellers.com. We will launch in the new year a free website builder like Yola (flash) that output HTML for non SL devices and search engines.

    Long live Silverlight! :)

    Monday, November 08, 2010 2:38 AM
  • One last departing thought from me as well, if 95% of websites in the world are HTML websites and it is so wonderful to reach all platforms then why am I only able to view maybe 1% of them on my mobile. You still need to code a HTML version for the desktop and a HTML version for a small factor screen (mobile). Here is a site (still beta) that we did in SL and the client loves it: http://www.turnerjewellers.com. We will launch in the new year a free website builder like Yola (flash) that output HTML for non SL devices and search engines.

    Long live Silverlight! :)