Print - Microsoft Shines its Silverlight on Adobe

Microsoft on Monday announced a prerelease version of a new cross-platfrom browser plug-in called Silverlight that will provide Web designers with a way to add high-quality video and animations to their sites. The technology competes directly with Adobe Flash and, to a lesser extent, with Apple QuickTime. But this isn't the first time Microsoft and Adobe have found themselves at odds with each other. The release of Silverlight suggests that, at last, the gloves are off.

Adobe's Flash has been available for about a decade and, despite some technical issues, it's become a de facto standard of sorts for delivering animated content online. (In much the same way, Adobe PDF has become an online standard for delivering documents.) In recent years, Flash has been enhanced to deliver small, low-quality videos. The success of this format can be seen on sites like YouTube, which has become so popular it was recently purchased by online goliath Google.

Silverlight seeks to eliminate various Flash deficiencies by offering much higher quality video and better in-player controls. Microsoft says that Silverlight supports up to 720p video--1280 x 720 resolution--at much higher quality than is possible with Flash. And unlike Flash, Silverlight won't require any expensive back-end servers for companies wishing to rollout the technology. And surprisingly, for a Microsoft product, Silverlight supports all major Web browsers, including Internet Explorer, Firefox, and even Apple Safari, which runs only on the Mac.

Silverlight uses vector graphics for higher quality, Microsoft says, and can be used to display text, graphics, video, and video with text and graphic overlays. It will work with existing Web technologies such as Apache, PHP, JavaScript, and XHTML. Microsoft is also creating various Expression tools for creating and deploying Silverlight content, though these will be Windows-only.

Adobe says content creators can't trust the software giant. "Microsoft has never demonstrated a commitment to maintaining a cross-platform solution," Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen said, suggesting that Microsoft may eventually halt development of Mac-oriented versions of the software as it did with Mac versions of Windows Media Player and IE. Not coincidentally, Adobe has responded to recent interest in using Flash as a delivery vehicle for video with a new desktop player called Flash Video. It's due later this year, and is cross-platform.

Partners in some respects, Adobe and Microsoft increasingly find themselves competing in the same markets. Adobe complained to antitrust regulators last year that Microsoft's bundling of its XML Paper Specification (XPS) format in Windows Vista and Office 2007 was unfair, as it closely resembles Adobe's PDF technologies. And Microsoft's new Expression Design tool competes directly with Adobe Photoshop. Now, with Silverlight, Microsoft is again going after a key Adobe market, and this time, Microsoft is offering a cross-platform solution that actually offers some obvious benefits over the entrenched Adobe entry. Should be an interesting fight.

Why does it seems like MS is just throwing me too products? Not a flame question

It will be interesting to see how this works out. From what I have gathered, Silverlight apps are *much* easier to develop than Flash. At least Microsoft is getting better in naming their products.

"Why does it seems like MS is just throwing me too products?" I'm not convinced this is a "me too" product, but--surprisingly for the xBox maker--an actual improvement over an existing solution. Given the Mac's entrenchement in this area, they had to make it cross-platform. So while that's admirable in a sense, Adobe's Chizen is absolutely correct when he warns that "Microsoft has never demonstrated a commitment to maintaining a cross-platform solution*" Still, if this product serves to keep Adobe on their toes, so much the better. Competition is good. * To wit: "Microsoft is also creating various Expression tools for creating and deploying Silverlight content, though these will be Windows-only." One also can't blame Chizen for playing the FUD card when 23% of his company's sales last year were for products on the Mac platform. No one wants to lose 23% of their business.

"At least Microsoft is getting better in naming their products." Don't worry--I'm sure the full official name is something like "Microsoft® Silverlight® for Microsoft® Windows® Vista® Premium Edition 2007". ;-) <----please note the wink.

Adobe Flash sounds like something you might see at the Playboy Mansion! ;-) <--- the all-forgiving wink!

Microsoft is just trying to corner the web development market with inferior software whose inevitable secuity/performance headaches will outweigh any benefit to using them.

I think this article is missing the point. Silverlight is competing with Flex/Apollo (also Adobe technologies), not Flash. Silverlight (formerly WPF/E) is a subset of WPF (.NET 3.0). Many developers like myself see Silverlight potentially as the next programming platform to build all future applications. Silverlight is a HUGE deal and much more than a Flash killer, its a Java killer and a WinForms killer too. The big question is: is MS going to push .NET 3.0 or Silverlight to develop all new apps?

@vandil: "Microsoft is just trying to corner the web development market with inferior software whose inevitable secuity/performance headaches will outweigh any benefit to using them." Ignorance showing once again. Simple question - have you done any development before? Have you used VS 2005? Yeah, didn't think so.

@TimmyG: Great question about Silverlight v .NET 3.0. My guess is that it will be a combined approach. I don't see WinForms going away any time soon - every time we've seen a technology that's going to kill WinForms, WinForms seems to still survive. WinForms will aways have advantages over any web-based technology - not the least of which being the ability to run it offline.

"Have you used VS 2005?" Nope. It's written by Microsoft. Therefore, using Apple logic, it is (1.) buggy, (2.) inferior to Apple products and (3.) full of security holes. As for me, I own VS 2005 Pro and use it as my primary development platform - it is the best IDE on the market, IMO>

I agree with TimmyG that this is not a Flash competitor, although it certainly seems like that at the outset. Many people in the tech media are getting this wrong. It is more of a Flex/Apollo competitor. Great name by MS. They have shown some verve with the naming of some products recently that I'm sure will continue. DreamScene and Photosynth come to mind. "WinForms will aways have advantages over any web-based technology - not the least of which being the ability to run it offline." Ah, but with a .NET runtime environment running on the client, you can achieve this. How long is a different story.

"Microsoft is just trying to corner the web development market with inferior software whose inevitable secuity/performance headaches will outweigh any benefit to using them." ....Microsoft bought up Apple's development team?? XP

Adobe makes a good point. Will Microsoft dominate, conquer, and abandon the multimedia/animation segment (while calling it "embrace and extend" or some jibberish). Silverlight does look compelling, but is an all-Microsoft world a safe world? (this is a rhetorical question)

@Nate: Thanks, I needed the laugh. Best description of VS 2005 I've ever heard: "It's like crack for developers."

"...is an all-Microsoft world a safe world?" No. In the same way that an all-Google or all-Apple world is not (despite what some people here will say). But competition is always good.

Thank god microsoft is doing this. I've been waiting for Microsoft to take web development to the next level. Lets abandon this silly flash nonsense and leave the developer tools to the people who know how to write them. Microsoft knows that for sure.

"Lets [sic] abandon this silly flash [sic] nonsense and leave the developer tools to the people who know how to write them. Microsoft knows that for sure." Spoken (and written) like a true programmer (or "IT Professional").

"Spoken (and written) like a true programmer (or "IT Professional")." Spoken (and written) like a true holier-than-thou marketing professional.

I'll admit that I'm not a developer...I am a sys/storage admin. lotsa, on the other hand, won't admit that...he is just guy with a marketing degree and wanna be IT guy with a that lurks here to bash MS, glorify Apple, and drop [sic] bombs when he is ignorant on a subject!!! --tayme

"Spoken (and written) like a true programmer (or "IT Professional")." ....wow! 2 things losta knows nothing about. XP

lotsa, what part of WindowsITPro (shown on the upper left side of this page) do you not understand?

"lotsa, what part of WindowsITPro (shown on the upper left side of this page) do you not understand?" I understand enough to know that it's folks like me (and not IT Administrators) that will be using these tools to develop content. And if you go back and read my first post, you'll see that I'm applauding Microsoft for raising the bar in this area.

"Adobe says content creators can't trust the software giant. "Microsoft has never demonstrated a commitment to maintaining a cross-platform solution,"" Er... ok... we know who won't be getting Office 2008 in their stockings this year...

"Er... ok... we know who won't be getting Office 2008 in their stockings this year..." Office for the Mac is nowhere near as feature-rich as its Microsoft Windows cousin, nor does it offer full feature parity. It serves as a perfect example of Microsoft's half-hearted efforts in this arena. While I appreciate that they offer a product called "Office" for OSX, it's hardly as transparent a cross-platform solution as is offered by the folks at Adobe. And you look at me with a straight face and tell me that Word and PowerPoint are more complex (and thus more difficult to offer at true cross-platform feature parity) than, say, Photoshop.

Errata: That last sentence should start out thusly: "And you *can't* look at me with a straight face..."

"Office for the Mac is nowhere near as feature-rich as its Microsoft Windows cousin, nor does it offer full feature parity." Yes it is. Yes it does. "enjoy virtually flawless compatibility with Microsoft Office for Windows" --Apple Corporation "if your organization uses an Exchange Server, no problem: support is already built into Entourage 2004" --Apple Corporation It doesn't 'look' the same b/c Mac BU didn't want it to. Apparently there's this stigma at Apple that Microsoft is 'evil' and they don't even want their Microsoft apps to look... Microsoft-y. The featureset is all there. Adobe didn't even take the time to make Photoshop more oriented to a "Windows" UI environment. I still have all these little miniwindows flying around all over the place.

"While I appreciate that they offer a product called "Office" for OSX, it's hardly as transparent a cross-platform solution as is offered by the folks at Adobe." that's alright. Apple has nothing even close anyway, and Microsoft is happy to take all you Mac user's money even though you made the wrong choice in computing platforms. maybe when people see the inferior Office 2008 product on OSX, they'll buy Windows Vista to install in Boot Camp to run the superior Office 2007....or better yet, they'll see that they don't need to spend hundreds of dollars more on a shiny white plastic system to run Windows and Office. either way, Microsoft is still a software company at heart, and they'll still rake in the moolah! XP

"Yes it is. Yes it does." No it doesn't. No it doesn't. One word: Access. Oh, and then there's MapPoint, Microsoft Visio ,Microsoft Office Picture Manager, Microsoft Project , Microsoft Publisher, Microsoft OneNote, Microsoft Office Communicator, Microsoft SharePoint Designer, Microsoft Office Groove and Microsoft Office Accounting. None of those are offered in the Mac Office package. Granted, a lot of them are bloatware, but an astonishing number of people use Publisher, even though it's a total POS.

"an astonishing number of people use Publisher, even though it's a total POS" beats InDesign anyday! phew what a stinker that one is. plus, Publisher costs less than 1/2 the price. can Adobe even make an intuitive UI? the old has-been UI's of Photoshop, InDesign, and even Dreamweaver just don't cut it nowadays. XP

"you look at me with a straight face and tell me that Word and PowerPoint are more complex (and thus more difficult to offer at true cross-platform feature parity) than, say, Photoshop." You make a quote like that, then you actually think it is harder to make a port of a single application like Photoshop than this... "MapPoint, Microsoft Visio ,Microsoft Office Picture Manager, Microsoft Project , Microsoft Publisher, Microsoft OneNote, Microsoft Office Communicator, Microsoft SharePoint Designer, Microsoft Office Groove and Microsoft Office Accounting." I said that Word and Powerpoint offer full feature parity, and they do. Then you want to change the rules and add in the niche stuff that doesn't come with any standard Office bundle. If you are going to change the rules mid-swing, don't expect that people are going to give them any creedence. And yes, I will look at you with a straight face and say it is harder to port the entire (20+ application) Microsoft Office productivity line than 'Photoshop'.