Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Microsoft Prefers Flash To Silverlight

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sat May 10, 2008 10:39 AM
from the recoding-takes-time dept.
Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft still has not adopted Silverlight, and uses Flash all over its websites. 'Despite all the controversy over Microsoft using Silverlight to take over the rich internet market from Adobe Flash, the software giant seems to be not even trying. In fact, even most Microsoft web sites are using Flash instead of Silverlight.'"

Related Stories

Firehose:Microsoft Prefers Flash to Silverlight by Anonymous Coward
[+] Developers: Microsoft Linking Silverlight, Ruby on Rails 232 comments
CWmike writes "Friday Microsoft will demonstrate integration between its new Silverlight browser plug-in and Ruby on Rails. Microsoft's John Lam, a program manager in the dynamic language runtime team, said in a recent blog item: 'Running Rails shows that we are serious when we say that we are going to create a Ruby that runs real Ruby programs. And there isn't a more real Ruby program than Rails.' Also at the event, Microsoft officials will demonstrate IronRuby, a version of the Ruby programming language for Microsoft's .Net platform, running a Ruby on Rails application."
[+] Technology: Move Over AJAX, Make Room for ARAX 409 comments
sasserstyl writes "eWeek reports that Microsoft's Silverlight platform will support Ruby client-side scripting, enabling ARAX — or Asynchronous Ruby and XML. Would be cool to have the option to script client-side in something other than Javascript. 'In essence, using ARAX, Ruby developers would not have to go through the machinations of using something like the RJS (Ruby JavaScript) utility, where they write Ruby code and RJS generates JavaScript code to run on the client, Lam said. "Sure, you could do it that way, but then at some point you might have to add some JavaScript code that adds some custom functionality on the client yourself," he said. "So there's always that sense of, 'Now I'm in another world. And wouldn't it be nice if I have this utility class I wrote in Ruby...' Today if I want to use it in the browser I have to port it to JavaScript. Now I can just run it in the browser."'"
[+] Technology: Microsoft Demos "Deep Zoom" Technology 272 comments
Barence writes "Yesterday, during a presentation for this year's Imagine Cup, Microsoft's Mark Taylor demonstrated the company's Deep Zoom technology to appreciative gasps of admiration from the computing students present. It's pretty impressive stuff, and you can try 'deep zooming' for yourself at the Hard Rock Memorabilia Site." Unfortunately the demo requires the Silverlight plugin and the story is pretty thin on technical details. I would be interested to see how they captured the image data to that level without massive pixelation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft Prefers Flash To Silverlight 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.

  • Dog food? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig.hogger@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Saturday May 10, @10:42AM (#23360808) Homepage Journal
    Who ever said something about dog food and eating it???

    • This story is idiotic. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TiggertheMad (556308) on Saturday May 10, @12:49PM (#23361738) Homepage Journal
      I am going to come right out and say, whoever posted this story was an idiot. (notice they posted it anon..)

      Microsoft is a huge company with dozens of divisions, and thousands of teams. Development cycles for a company like this can last years. Don't expect them to adopt some new technology like silverlight on every single public site they posess in a heartbeat.

      Moreover, just suggesting that they would re-write an existing portal (that may not even really need SL technology) simply because a new technology came out makes no sense. Programmer time is expensive, so what business justification do you have spending money to rebuild a portal that is functioning just fine in the first place?

      MS does stupid shit that they deserver to be bashed for, such as the whole Open XML fiasco. Posting stories like this just destroys the sites credibility, and makes look like you engage in mindless MS bashing, rather than really looking at issues that are critical to tech savy people.

      • Re:This story is idiotic. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by herve_masson (104332) on Saturday May 10, @01:46PM (#23362164)
        Don't expect them to adopt some new technology like silverlight on every single public site they posess in a heartbeat

        Certainely not. But between your figure and no exposure at all (almost), there is some room, and it looks odd that did not really start some sort of significant promotion for their technology (unless I missed it).

        Moreover, just suggesting that they would re-write an existing portal (that may not even really need SL technology) simply because a new technology came out makes no sense

        They did that "non-sense" (in a technical point of view) in the past. Just look at the hotmail migration (attempt) on windows server for example. If you want your technology to get exposure, you need to show it in action on realife applications. Microsoft has the horsepower to do that sort of things very quickly and deeply, to the contrary of many others.

        It looks strange to me because I've little doubt that the client-rich application's future is closer to FLEX/SL than the present web "standards".

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by KutuluWare (791333)

          Certainely not. But between your figure and no exposure at all (almost), there is some room, and it looks odd that did not really start some sort of significant promotion for their technology (unless I missed it).

          You sort-of missed it. There are portions of their site that are being tested with Silverlight, such as their new MSDN downloads area. They are beta tests, so you only see them if you're one of the random users that gets prompted to participate while using the production site, but they do exist. Also, not that this is a huge plus for SL but it's integrated heavily into the Vista UI already.

          Also, lets not forget that SL is new. v1.0 may be a few years old, but it's nowhere near as easy to use as 2.0 is

          • Also, lets not forget that SL is new. v1.0 may be a few years old
            Silverlight 1.0 was released in September 2007. It's not even a year old.

      • Re:This story is idiotic. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GaryPatterson (852699) on Saturday May 10, @09:51PM (#23365870)
        I agree with you, except to say that this is a huge missed opportunity for Microsoft.

        Internally, I imagine many people at Microsoft knew that Silverlight was coming, and had access to the team behind it. The issue of 'turning the ship' is just an excuse. Internal communication may be terrible, but major new products should be trumpeted far and wide in a company like Microsoft.

        Imagine the impact of an entirely Silverlight-based Microsoft site on launch day, from their front page through to MSDN. That would highlight the new web platform amazingly well, greatly increase the uptake (every visitor would choose to download it or view old Flash content, perhaps) and present a solid, unified front from the entire company.

        The only justification required for rewriting their web presence is simply this - do they want Silverlight to succeed or not? Right now people can point to Microsoft's own site and argue with some justification that Microsoft has no faith in their own product. It's just as bad as if they were hosting their site on Linux servers.

        It's not just a 'dog-fooding' thing either. It's also advertising without buying ad space. How will Silverlight pick up unless people know about it? One way for people to find out is to pay for ads, another is to lead by example and show how it's better. Lead the web developers and the users will follow.

        It would've been a massive undertaking and expensive, so I can see why few would advocate it. It would also have been a massive statement about the company really getting behind their new web platform, and an excellent example of the power of Silverlight.

        A missed opportunity, unfortunately.

        • Re:This story is idiotic. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by lilfields (961485) on Saturday May 10, @03:13PM (#23362878) Homepage
          Why is that if Adobe has a monopoly on a web item that in the end will be monstrously profitable that it's perfectly ok? If Microsoft wants to move in and give them competition it's a mortal sin. Slashdot really is starting to lose it's credibility lately, it seems like every article in the past 2 weeks has been completely and utterly anti-Microsoft. I know people here have a bias against the company, but it's gotten especially bad lately, almost every comment has been likewise...I guess you have to appeal to your audience even if it loses you credibility...it's the Fox News mantra.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Scrameustache (459504)

            Why is that if Adobe has a monopoly on a web item that in the end will be monstrously profitable that it's perfectly ok? If Microsoft wants to move in and give them competition it's a mortal sin.

            First. There was Quicktime. And we had motion.

            Then there was Real,
            and we were an[BUFFERING]noyed.

            Then there was Flash... At first it was wasted on useless intro animations, and was despised. But then it found its niche, and made one good thing easy: Embedding video in a web page, and giving that an interface.
            And we were pleased.

            And since it was good, it became very profitable. And Microsoft saw that profit, and said "I want it for me!", and they made silverlight, and tried to force us to use it by signing

  • Silverlight is insignificant (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Z00L00K (682162) on Saturday May 10, @10:43AM (#23360810)
    Silverlight is insignificant as a technology as long as it exists only for Windows, and even then it will be adopted by a very limited amount of web sites.

    Most sites making commercials will probably stay with Flash and animated images as a backup unless Silverlight allows them to create yet more annoying CPU-demanding commercials.

    • Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Informative)

      by modmans2ndcoming (929661) on Saturday May 10, @10:48AM (#23360860)
      uhhh.... news flash, there is an OS X and Linux runtime.

      • Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:4, Insightful)

        by canuck57 (662392) on Saturday May 10, @11:09AM (#23361050)

        uhhh.... news flash, there is an OS X and Linux runtime.

        Forgive me, I will wait until the FOSS community gets a chance to vet the code first. In the mean time, as the title says, Silverlight is insignificant and irrelevant.

      • Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Informative)

        by Gavagai80 (1275204) on Saturday May 10, @11:15AM (#23361080)
        Newsflash: getting silverlight (moonlight) to actually install on Linux takes a team of experts, and even if you manage that it'll fail on most pages. It's no more accurate to say that there's a silverlight for linux than it is to say that all windows programs run in linux thanks to wine.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by @madeus (24818)
          IME, Siverlight is a far better environment for developing real applications in than Flash, which is really only suitable for animations (from a software developer perspective). Something like Siverlight or Java is far more appropriate for application development (but Java - from the perspective of web based application roll outs - has gone off the rails if you ask me).

          IMO, it should really have worked the way rolling out projects from Project Builder on NeXT/Open Step worked - only the relevant libraries/D
          • Perhaps someone can illustrate to me why I'm wrong and it really is good for application development and I'm just missing something every time I come to look it it (perhaps because the books and documentation are almost all aimed at animators+designers, not developers?).

            Yes, you're wrong.

            It's a shame you spent so much effort writing all that and none on Googling, because there is plenty of information out there.

            Adobe's own application platform for Flash is Flex [adobe.com]. OpenLaszlo [openlaszlo.org] is an open-source XML based programming language for developing apps in SWF. Flash itself also has a substantial component collection for app development, and finally, there are dozens of third-party ActionScript IDEs and compliers available.

            That's why Microsoft is introducing Silverlight. Flash is threatening to become an OS-independent application platform which could make Windows irrelevant.

            • Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Insightful)

              by i.of.the.storm (907783) on Saturday May 10, @01:09PM (#23361884) Homepage

              >

              That's why Microsoft is introducing Silverlight. Flash is threatening to become an OS-independent application platform which could make Windows irrelevant.

              I have a feeling people said the same thing about Java, and it hasn't exactly made Windows irrelevant. What makes you think Flash will be more successful than Java?
              • What makes you think Flash will be more successful than Java?

                I said it was threatening, not that it would be successful.

                Those of us who were around then will remember that Microsoft mounted a sustained attack on Java, and deliberately crippled it's multi-platform capabilities. I'm sure they will try the same with Flash.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by vux984 (928602)
                  Because Adobe is not Sun?

                  This would be the same Adobe that doesn't have 64-bit flash yet? on any platform! Whose linux flash support even in 32-bit is way behind the times?

                  If there was ever a platform that Microsoft had a real chance of overtaking, Flash would be it. If sliverlight/moonlight can get an installed base it has a real chance of being a flash killer.

                  And considering windows update just prompted me to try the new 'silverlight' beta version, MS *IS* putting the effort in to use silverlight on their

          • Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Informative)

            by jsebrech (525647) on Saturday May 10, @12:09PM (#23361478)
            Basically though, I think Flash has just gone too far down the wrong route, as application development in it seems like a hack. Perhaps someone can illustrate to me why I'm wrong and it really is good for application development and I'm just missing something every time I come to look it it (perhaps because the books and documentation are almost all aimed at animators+designers, not developers?).

            You're indeed missing something, because you're looking at the wrong product. Adobe's product for developing web applications for the flash player is called flex. Go take a look at some flex books (for flex 2 or 3), and be enlightened.

            In my opinion flex can go toe-to-toe with any client-side web dev platform, be it silverlight, java client, java/gwt, extjs, or whatever.

            Actionscript 3 is modern language that encourages good development practices. The flex framework is complete, fast, light, easy to extend, and easy to work with. And mxml, flex's xaml-equivalent, well, just check it out, it's really nice.

            I see it as quite opposite. Silverlight doesn't offer a compelling featureset to lure people away from flash/flex. It doesn't do anything development-wise that might tempt flex developers, and it cannot integrate animators and designers as good as the flash / flex combination can.
          • The problem is not that Microsoft is trying to introduce a new technology. The problem is that Microsoft is extremely adversarial toward customers, sometimes, in my opinion. For example, Microsoft will soon begin FORCING people to install Silverlight if they want to download files from microsoft.com/downloads/ [microsoft.com].

            At least the first 2 versions of Microsoft products usually have very severe bugs. For example, Windows XP and Windows XP SP1, and Windows Vista and Windows Vista SP1 were or are full of grief for administrators.

            Customers don't want to be beta testers for Microsoft, any longer.

            After Microsoft has forced a significant number of its less knowledgeable users to install Silverlight, Microsoft salesmen will begin talking about "significant market share", if the past is any guide.

            "I think Flash has just gone too far down the wrong route, as application development in it seems like a hack." My experience with Macromedia is that it was always a sloppy company. Unforunately, Adobe management seems to be malfunctioning recently.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Serapth (643581)

      Because Silverlight-based applications are cross-platform, they run in most modern Web browsers, including the following:

      Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 Beta

      Mozilla Firefox versions 1.5 and 2.0

      Apple Safari version 2.0 and 3.0 Beta.

      Currently it runs on Windows and Mac, with the Mono team apparently having a Silverlight port already up and running. Its not 100% cross platform, but its a hell of alot better then most previous Microsoft technologies. You have to keep in mind the technol

    • Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:5, Insightful)

      by innerweb (721995) on Saturday May 10, @11:06AM (#23361036)

      I guess you never heard of Netscape?>

      MS will simply work on the technology until they are ready to push it out as part of IE. Then, one update, it goes live to all of the IE users they can push it to. They already have critical mass, they only have to flip that switch. You have to remember MS does not move on a dime. They are slower and more methodical in their market take overs. They have time and money on their side. And they normally get what they want.

      They will probably have all (or most) of their websites with a silverlight version running before they flip that switch. Then, they will push it out and the new experience will start. But, they will want that experience to be noticeably *better* before they do it.

      InnerWeb

      • Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:4, Informative)

        by gbjbaanb (229885) on Saturday May 10, @11:39AM (#23361254)
        I'm sure silverlight is quite a good technology.

        but who cares, they turned me off it when I kept getting popups asking if I wanted to install it, am I sure I don't, no really we think you should. oh ok, I'll ask again next time you visit any page in case you've changed your mind.

        I installed it in the end just to shut the damn thing up, and even then it refused to install. I almost cried with the frustration! The CIA could use this technique to get their terrorist suspects to talk.

        MS doesn't often plan their takeover of markets, someone someehere in the depths of MS's vast ranks of development makes something cool, others within MS get to hear of it, its attracts some takeup,, and then everone in MS thinks that becuase they like it, you will too. And if you don't like it - tough, as they want you to have it so it becomes ubiqutous enough that they can use it everywhere without worrying about it. Hence the push to have silverlight installed everywhere.

        Of course, that's the old way of MS planning. Now, someone at MS decides they can make money from it/increase market share/dominate a market, and so they tell everyone at MS to push it everywhere. It often doesn't work - look at .net and how much takeup they have there from the Office, Windows and now the Visual Studio teams. But you, as a MS consumer, still get the marketing message pushed down your throat like it or not.

        BTW, they cannot 'flip the switch' and have you have it, they'd get sued. Again. That's why you have to opt-in to silverlight. Whether you want it or not.
        • Surely you should be quizzing the original poster on whether he meant mean, median or mode when he said 'average'.

        • Re:Silverlight is insignificant (Score:4, Insightful)

          by LynnwoodRooster (966895) on Saturday May 10, @05:26PM (#23364096) Journal
          It's more common than you think. Want a full size truck? Honda doesn't offer one. Want a hybrid? Good luck shopping for a BMW, Mercedes, or even Volkswagen. Need a size 58 suit jacket? Not a chance at Macy's or JC Penney's. Left handed golf clubs? No such luck at Costco.

          The reality is that most stores cater to the 85-90% of the market they are in; the rest are marginalized simply because you can't make enough money on them - too much support and inventory costs to support everyone and that leaves the little niche markets for small companies.

          When you're a big company, you simply cannot look to take on every small niche - you will not survive. So you live on the big chunks of the market.

  • re-development cost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shird (566377) on Saturday May 10, @10:44AM (#23360830) Homepage Journal
    It's a bit of a no-brainer - MS still has to pay for development somehow. They have existing flash code and developers, why would they re-write and re-train?

    Give it some time before making these stupid accusations. Just because they themselves have existing code and developers doesn't mean they are suggesting new development elsewhere shouldn't use the technology and be "ahead of the curve". I'm not saying silverlight is better - just that MS's lack of use of it doesn't suggest anything at this point in time.

    • Re:re-development cost (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dotancohen (1015143) on Saturday May 10, @10:53AM (#23360912) Homepage

      It's a bit of a no-brainer - MS still has to pay for development somehow. They have existing flash code and developers, why would they re-write and re-train?
      That, and the fact that Silverlight won't run on their developers' Ubuntu boxen. The top of the pyramid may be crap, but the bottom is still pretty sharp from what I understand.

    • Re:re-development cost (Score:5, Funny)

      by mysticgoat (582871) on Saturday May 10, @11:16AM (#23361098) Journal

      I didn't realize that Microsoft still had developers. I sort of thought that Vista and Office 2007 demonstrated that all the developers had exercised their stock options and gone on to more interesting projects with Google, IBM, and Yahoo.

      Um, wasn't that what the Yahoo deal was really all about? Ballmer trying to reclaim some of his developers developers developers?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BenoitRen (998927)

      They have existing flash code and developers, why would they re-write and re-train?

      To promote their product?

      Give it some time before making these stupid accusations.

      Silverlight has been released more than a year ago already. They have had quite some time already, especially for a company with massive resources.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wvmarle (1070040)
      Virtually no-one has Silverlight installed, while virtually anyone has Flash installed. Now the MS web-site is product support, advertising, etc. MS may be crazy, but they are not so stupid as to alienate the vast majority of the Internet population by demanding a specific plug-in to be installed just for their website.
      We don't live in the "please install this plugin" era anymore. That time is over. Most people have never, ever installed a plug-in and the rest hasn't done so since the last decade or so.
      Mi

  • Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Adambomb (118938) on Saturday May 10, @10:45AM (#23360836) Journal
    Seems more like they're taking their time on this one. More than likely, they'll wait long enough to include it as a default update push and once its ubiquitous on their platform THEN go ahead with changing across their sites. Of course, they'd have to be careful to avoid another anti-trust row.

    The last thing they want is people going "wtf, microsofts site is broken!" because they don't realize its silverlight.

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10, @10:56AM (#23360938)

      The last thing they want is people going "wtf, microsofts site is broken!"

      Yes, because Microsoft products are so insanely reliable, so robust, so rock-solid, that Microsoft could in no way afford to create the perception that perhaps something of theirs is broken. It would ruin them, I tell you!
  • I know I would...

  • the obvious (Score:5, Funny)

    by dotancohen (1015143) on Saturday May 10, @10:51AM (#23360892) Homepage

    Microsoft Prefers Flash To Silverlight
    Who doesn't?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by maxume (22995)
              There is no need to invoke the Mods.

              They, like the Gods, will do as they will.

  • JavaFX.com is Java-free (Score:5, Informative)

    by ewg (158266) on Saturday May 10, @11:00AM (#23360970)

    JavaFX.com [javafx.com] uses JavaScript and QuickTime to promote the benefits of JavaFX. No JVM needed.

    (Of course, you still have to visit the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] for an introduction in context.)

    • From the "JavaFX Technology Overview" section of the JavaFX.com website:

      Built on Java. JavaFX is not starting from scratch; it is built on the Java platform (Java SE and Java ME) and leverages the power and capabilities of the Java platform. It also extends the Java platform to deliver on the original promise of client-side Java.


      Unless by "No JVM needed," you mean "No JVM needed apart from an already installed JVM."
  • I'm pretty sure I read that Microsoft is in the middle of migrating over to Silverlight for most of their sites, since it is one of their biggest platforms for promoting and getting people to install it. I think the same article said the Olympics site was also going to be a big showcase for Silverlight.

    I have to admit, some of the Silverlight sites I've seen so far have actually been kind of cool - the one that sticks out to me is the Hard Rock Memorabilia site at http://memorabilia.hardrock.com/ [hardrock.com]

    • I can't seem to install the exe. Anyone know how to get it working on FF + GNU/Linux? No?

      Until then I guess I'll just have to make do without the undoubtedly awesome hardrock cafe memoribilia website. Undoubtedly, because their RL establishments are just so great...

  • Thank God, I hate the obtrusive advertising. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by urbanriot (924981) on Saturday May 10, @11:11AM (#23361058)
    I'll never adopt Silverlight, or at least I'll wait until the bitter end (probably like I did with Macromedia Flash), mainly because I'm sick and tired of seeing their obtrusive "Install Silverlight" popup that you're forced to view every time you go onto their web site with Internet Explorer. That alone makes me hate it, and raises my... annoyance with Microsoft.

  • Perfect Slashdot Article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Speare (84249) on Saturday May 10, @11:12AM (#23361062) Homepage

    "Microsoft still has not adopted Silverlight, and uses Flash all over it's websites. "Despite all the controversy over Microsoft using Silverlight to take over the rich internet market from Adobe Flash, the software giant seems to be not even trying. In fact, even most Microsoft web sites are using Flash instead of Silverlight."

    A perfect blurb for Slashdot. Bashes Microsoft. Claims competition is a "controversy." Mixes up pronouns. Makes up impressive sounding terminology like "the rich internet market." Shocked that different parts of a megacorporation uses different toolsets. Has no clue or firmly ignores that management of Microsoft departments are as segmented as possible for profit reasons, antitrust reasons and at the demand of the marketplace. Even gets the Microsoft-haters like me to go WTF?! and post a reply, driving up page hits.

  • Adobe is Poised to Lose It (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bxwatso (1059160) on Saturday May 10, @11:46AM (#23361292)
    IMO, Adobe is actively against MS. Acrobat is still not fully Vista compatible. Flash crashes my IE7 daily, and there are no x64 plans that I know of (they made a vague announcement a long time ago).

    Silverlight works just fine on my web site and doesn't crash anything. MS is pushing a lot of content providers to try Silverlight, so the install base should go up this summer.

    MS lost its edge in the OS war through complacency and slow roll-out performance. I see Adobe doing the same with Flash.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cbhacking (979169)
      I'm actually surprised you're haing troubles with Flash and IE7 - I had the same issues, but with Firefox. It eventually got so bad I just stopped going to certain sites at all using Firefox, and since the IE8 beta came out I've been testing it heavily - while I won't claim it's un-crashable (though remarkably stable for an early beta) I've had no issues with Flash.

      Silverlight seems to work fine on both, though I've only run across a few sites that use it.

      As for Acrobat, are you talking the PDF creation too

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Niten (201835)

        The reason that x64 CS3 will be Windows-only is that Apple promised, and then later rescinded, a 64-bit Carbon. It's really more a case of Apple shooting itself in the foot than any fault on Adobe's part.

        I agree with you regarding getting CS on Linux, though. I also think that Adobe's recent move to lift the restrictions on the use of the Flash format documentation is a step in the right direction -- it says to me that Adobe would rather open up Flash entirely than see it lose to Silverlight, and in the

  • This said it better than I could have:

    http://blog.dennyboynton.com/post/Why-is-Microsoft-So-Slow-to-Adopt-Silverlight.aspx [dennyboynton.com]

    ...when I talk to people about adopting Silverlight, they always make the comment, "I already have so much Flash built into my web site, I don't know where to start with Silverlight." Well, the good news is you don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water. The fact of the matter is that you can begin to implement Silverlight where it makes sense in your web site without modifying or removing any of the Flash assets you already have in place. Silverlight will run just fine in a web page with Flash, so you can iteratively begin the process if implementing Silverlight and, if prudent, replacing Flash to take advantage of XAML, developer/designer collaboration, developing in managed code and all the other benefits Silverlight has to offer. No expensive and painful "big bang" replacement is necessary. Find a requirement for which Silverlight is a good fit and implement it. It's as simple as that.

    The truth is, while the rest of the world would hold Microsoft to a higher standard than any other company, at the end of the day Microsoft works very much like the IT shops you probably work in. Each Microsoft product and web site has a team of developers and product managers that have a finite budget, timeline and resource pool in which to work. Believe me, if Silverlight could be deployed as a replacement to Flash across all Microsoft web sites next week, it would certainly make my job a hell of a lot easier, but that's not possible and difficult decisions have to be made in order to deliver a multitude of solutions currently underway on time and on budget.

    I can all but guarantee you that there are roadmaps in place to adopt Silverlight across most or all of the Microsoft web assets. That adoption will be rolled-out in a manner that delivers value to the business and as it makes sense. You're seeing that adoption begin on Microsoft.com and MSDN, and should see it on more Microsoft sites in the coming months and years, a very timely example being the new Expression Suite web site, all built in Silverlight...