I work in a predominantly Windows oriented development shop focused around video and there’s been lots of discussion surrounding Microsoft Silverlight and VC-1 over the last year or so. We’ve looked at the technical specs, analyzed the possibilities and engaged in seemingly endless discussions comparing the technology to the Adobe Flash platform. Microsoft has come knocking on our door repeatedly pitching the technology and as a Flash developer I’m surrounded by marketing hype and blogosphere rants, experiments, and outright paranoia at times. I’m always amazed at some of the claims that I see on the web and hear during meetings with their reps–claims which seemingly go unchallenged (maybe it’s just my ignorance that’s holding me back).
One of the oft heard and most annoying claims is that Silverlight will be a ubiquitous runtime quickly. This argument posits that all that it takes to be a ubiquitous runtime is a few killer apps. These killer apps typically are either viral content repositories or social in nature and therefore will quickly reach nearly every web enabled computer on the planet. Microsoft assured us during the Silverlight launch buildup that multiple killer apps would be released with the official 1.0 launch ensuring quick and massive penetration.
This claim that all it takes to become ubiquitous is a couple of killer apps has always struck me as off. Microsoft, and even some folks in the Adobe camp, like to point to YouTube and MySpace as what “made” Flash while conveniently forgetting that Flash Player adoption was at 98% of web enabled computers long before YouTube and MySpace came along.
It’s probably much more accurate to argue that Adobe Flash Player’s high penetration is what enabled the success of MySpace and YouTube. YouTube’s roaring success validated that Flash video had already won on the web despite the fact it supported fewer codecs of lesser quality than did the other embeddable media players.
When Flash MX and Flash Player 6 hit the streets in July of 2002 there were a lot of us who bought into the potential of video when paired with Flash Player’s ubiquity and its strange but wonderful scripting, graphics and animation capabilities. We envisioned a world of custom interfaces embedded seamlessly inside our rich applications and designs. We fought battle after battle just for the opportunity to use the technology. “Back in the day” no one was a believer and video on the web was a bad joke constantly undermined by the big three’s attempts at media player domination.
The point is that 6 years ago we started building the foundation for YouTube and it wasn’t by having a few killer apps, but rather thousands upon thousands of sites with a level of richness and creativity that was unimagined (I’m continually blown away by the creativity and talent that lives and breathes in this community).
Finally, VC-1 seems to be completely dead in the water. It’s my understanding that Microsoft’s strategy of driving adoption from the top down via major media studios and broadcasters has been a major failure. Hell, back in 2002 when Flash Player 6 sported its first video capabilities Windows Media 9 was being hyped like crazy by the softies. Six years later Microsoft has the same codec sporting a new name officially standardized under SMPTE and still can’t find a date to the prom. Instead, industry support has coalesced around h.264. The h.264 tooling and licensing options are available on a variety of different platforms and are an integral part of many media technology stacks.
It’s clear that Apple’s strategy of winning the war by focusing on the content creation tools, dominant portable media playback, cross OS playback / encoding, and media purchasing has soundly beaten Microsoft in the codec / media platform war. Adobe’s decision to include the h.264 codec instead of VC-1 in Flash Player and ditch its proprietary container format should be read as a slap in the face and a clear sign of VC-1′s impotence. In one move they walk away from vendor lock-in strategies and indicate how unappealing Microsoft’s codec offering is.
Microsoft’s track record over the last 10 years lends little comfort. They’ve managed to make a media player that is universally despised and which has progressively gotten worse with each subsequent release. They have a retread codec that’s worn many skirts and names and still can’t get a date. They make a portable media player no one wants and have backed a next generation dvd format that is now officially dead. Let’s see, there’s QuickTime competitor ASF which pales in comparison and has never taken off and it replaced the universally maligned “video for windows” container–AVI. Oh and let’s not forget gems such as Windows Movie Maker and Microsoft Producer. I could go on, but you should be able to connect the dots. I actually feel sorry for the Microsoft employees when I hear them pitch this stuff–it can’t be good for the self-esteem. Note to Microsoft–maybe stop tanking in the media sector and work on making an operating system that people don’t hate.
In the end, perhaps Silverlight will take off, but I doubt it will happen overnight. If it does, it will mean a long, hard, consistent battle in the trenches where winning over the hearts of small shops and individual artists is just as important as pumping up MSDN groupies and stroking ISVs. It will mean building a community of stunning talent and incredible heart (its not a numbers game in my book). It will mean winning over the trust of a massive population trained not to trust new browser installs and increasingly cynical of Microsoft and its aggressive monopolist tendencies as a whole.
If Microsoft is able to overcome all of the hurdles in front of it, Silverlight may become more than a lifeless corpse, but until then it appears they’ll be relying on Jedi mind tricks and their silvery tongue to convince developers and consumers to ignore their repeated missteps and failures in the media sector. Good luck with that MS, you’re going to need it. ;-)
Great post Brooks. I completely agree that Flash’s penetration allowed the success of Youtube.
Something I find interesting is how lots of people are saying that BluRay won the format war because HDDVD is looking bad. But I think that Flash secretly won the battle when they released Flash HD h264. Why worry about physical media anymore when I can stream HD cheaply over the interwebs?
Travis
Nice to hear more from people whom have enjoyed the Microsoft pitch and are questioning the facts that are presented as opposed to just being spoon feed a decision. Thanks for posting this.
Interesting point Travis. I’ve read some analysis on the BluRay / HDDVD conflict which suggested that Apple, despite officially backing BluRay, was not an active participant in the fight because of their belief that optical disc distribution is a bit of an anachronism. Apple plans on delivering h.264 through the cloud rather than the press. There’s lots of interesting activity in this space, that’s for sure.
@Matt
The funny thing is watching the MS folks do their pitch. Often they lack a fundamental understanding of the space, but when they do you can see them cringing; their body language suggests they don’t believe a word they are saying. When pressed they often revert to off the record comments that indicate Silverlight 1.0 isn’t ready for prime time–just wait for 2.0, or it’s not the ideal choice for consumer front ends at this time.
…glad I’m not the only one suffering through pitch after pitch.
But seriously, Brooks, don’t hold it all inside. Let me know what you really think of Microsoft media platform(s)…
;-) It probably wouldn’t sting so much if it wasn’t true.
You speak with such malice it’s clear that even if Silverlight did deliver in what it promised then you would still find something wrong with it.
Microsoft and Silverlight are in it for the long run and trying to compare silverlight version 1 with flash version 9 is a joke.
I have spent the last decade building windows applications on microsoft technologies. Silverlight just makes sense to me, I can create amazing experiences that were not previously possible. At the end of the day i can build amazing applications, more amazing then what i can currently.
Come speak to me in 2 years time when silverlight and wpf is just as pervasive as .net forms and asp.net web forms.
Time is all they need….
@advertboy
I don’t think there’s a need for ad hominem attacks. If you’d like to challenge the facts as presented I would certainly welcome it. I believe my major thrust was that ubiquity, if it happens, won’t occur overnight–you actually seem to agree with this point.
It will only take a couple of killer apps to hit a critical mass especially if they were line of business apps (like integration within microsoft office).
You say you’ve evaluated it technically YET you didnt give any specific points on parts of it’s technology that you don’t like. That would of been a better form of attack. The technology that is in Silverlight is amazing, the whole experience for a developer building a silverlight application is amazing too. Adobe can do alot to learn from the microsoft development environment. There’s a reason why MS .net and visual studio is used prevalently in the business world (something adobe flash and flex is finding difficult)..
So please pick some points in the silverlight technology that makes you hate it and we can debate them here! Otherwise be prepared for personal attacks!
I am a media designer,I don’t know any MS products and how they can help me to achieve my idea.
Silverlight presentations look awesome in my eyes and it´s lot of fun to tinker around with it, but as known form Microsoft products it´s a “permanently beta-version”. So on the one hand I agree to advertboy (but not with his language in such a free flowing organic manner:)), on the other Silverlight has still a long way to go. I wouldn´t expect it to be stable as well:)