Múltiples dispositivos y plataformas, no más un ambiente cerrado y confortable
Uno de los temas de mayor preocupación reflejados es el de la cobertura del producto respecto de dispositivos crecientemente heterogéneos, no sólo escritorio: mientras sus seguidores esperarían la ampliación de Silverlight "al menos" a Android, si algo dejan claro, es que para el producto, sólo hay planes para Windows Phone 7. Claramente, el mundo ha devenido heterogéneo y no monoproducto:
I'm in a project where we have to make a decision between Silverlight and HTML5. We were leaning toward Silverlight, but then put the brakes on when we heard about the comments from the PDC. This blog post doesn't help Silverlight's case. It merely looks like you're trying to calm a panic. But the reality is that anyone deciding on Silverlight vs HTML5 for new applications, that will be supported years down the road, must seriously consider jumping into HTML5 as the safer path. Clearly you've admitted it's the best path for cross platform applications. In an iPad, Android, Windows and everything else world we are flying toward... how can we *not* pick HTML5. (Dave Friedel)
To rectify this, I need to see an announcement that Silverlight will be ported to Android. Flash has. Yes, an iPhone port won't happen bc Apple policy, but Android is shipping on more phones and is more likely to be used by business people than iPhone. WP7 is starting from too small a base to invest in significant development. Right now develop for iPhone bc it's got the buzz, Android bc it's got the momentum, and then WP7 if and when resources allow. An Android port of Silverlight means develop for Android/WP7 first which further deflates iPhone momentum. Think strategically. (Anónimo)
I understand that porting it to iPhone is beyond Microsoft's reach and depends primarily on Apple , but it would be nice to get it ported to Android. No one expects you guys to cover all of the platforms with SL, but it would be nice to cover the most popular ones.(Nick Polyak)
Your competitior isn't backing away from taking its technology to popular platforms - they're finding ways to reward developers and designers for their continued support and loyalty by making sure they have a path to run everywhere that's relevant. There's no questioning their commitment, and yet questions persist about yours. (Anónimo)
Basically you're saying that it's not a battle you want to fight, so you're giving up altogether. I don't think everyone expected Silverlight to be on every device. Heck, the top 10 would be more than enough to satisfy nearly everyone out there (including devices your company controls and owns, such as Windows, Zune/WP7 and XBox).
HTML5 certainly hasn't had a problem with adoption on several devices. Heck, even Android (an entire OS) hasn't. So why is Silverlight having such a challenge in doing it? (Daniel)
I've been building a website over the past 2 years that incorporates 20,000+ lines of Silverlight on the client side (and yes, it really does need to be that complex.). I've been completely trusting Microsoft's commitment to this platform, but I'm now very very worried indeed. I've just spent all weekend learning GWT, and I'm starting to think a port might actually be plausible. Bob's blog post really seems nothing more than a half-assed effort at damage control, and I'm afraid that where there's smoke there's probably fire.
This time last week, I was silverlight's greatest fan. But unless you do a *lot* more to restore my confidence, I'm planning to spend the next month seeing how far I can get in migrating to GWT. I can't quite understand why you think this is a good thing for Microsoft. (ArcMan)
I'd like to see Silverlight and the Metro UI phone/tablet interface integrated tightly into Windows 8 the way iOS is being integrated into OSX Lion.Microsoft should utilize Windows Phone 7 and the Silverlight implementation to create an install base of developers who can then populate a mobile, desktop, tablet, and web app store. It only makes sense then to include license options for apps that run across the different mediums the Silverlight can hit.
I think anyone who doesn't see Silverlight as an LOB/media tool is missing the boat. I would never build a website in Silverlight. I would build my media viewer or my backend system though. I would definitely build an app on Silverlight. (CKLuis)
" As a result, getting a single runtime implementation installed on every potential device is practically impossible. " [conceptos de Bob Muglia en su post]
It's absolutely possible, and moreover that's exactly what must be done. You can have platform specific extensions of course, but core must be the same for all platforms. And if you cannot implement SilverLight runtime for all possible devices, just open source it, and it will be ported to any "potential" device in few months, and we won't need to even listen this meaningless statements how "cool" HTML5 is. (Sipank)
As a .NET/XAML programmer I've been very disappointed that I can't target one of Microsoft's popular platforms, the XBOX 360. It has been difficult to understand this glaring omission, but Scott Barnes' explanation as to the internal unpopularity of WPF sure seemed to make a lot of sense. For the immediate future, say the next five years, these are the relevant platforms...
WindowsYou're already on three of the seven. After watching you guys for years supporting NT on x86, Alpha, and x64, you can't convince me that you can't easily port a 5MB runtime to four more platforms. The tools and silverlight groups have done AMAZING work, to "shift" strategies now would truly be grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. I imagine your partners like Netflix would be delighted if they never had to do another port again and could rely on Silverlight. Seriously, if Sun and their grotesquely incompetent programmers were able to port java to so many platforms, you guys should at least be able to get it on seven. (Jack Bond)
I see silverlight as a better and lighter version of desktop runtime in replacing wpf which is so heavy and hard to deploy to people who don't have the latest runtime.Los lenguajes y arquitecturas propietarias son un escollo
The community will definetly like to see silverlight ported to more platforms. How commited are you to making silverlight cross platform? (Arson)
When you buy a PC or a car, you own it. You are free to use it the way you like and you can install any extension/software you want without asking the manufacturer. The mobile phone market is different. Think of it as a car you paid for in cash, however every year you have to pay a license fee and for every drive you have to pay-per-use for the steering wheel. Not to mention the payment for the manufacturer's OK for 3rd party tires... This is exactly the Apple business model for the iPad/iPhone. You buy it, yet Apple owns it/controls its usage.
Now Microsoft obviously failed in coming up with a similar or competing business model. Option a) entering the hardware market, controlling the devices, with full power offends all hardware partners and option b) controlling the application market through a license check in the SL runtime fails, because Silverlight (legally) cannot be installed at the majority of mobile devices.
So dear fellow developers, this is not about SL, this is about losing the first big battle on the mobile phone operating theatre. We're the collateral damage.Microsoft has enough cash for scraping another phone platform; happened early this summer didn't it? However what about you and me?
And I hope: Microsoft buys Nokia. (Hidden War)
Un tema que subyace en la preocupación de varios de los reclamantes, es la necesidad (aceptada o no, da lo mismo en este caso) de adaptarse a estándares concertados, dado que "el mundo es ancho y ajeno":
Perhaps MS should consider releasing a lightweight SL runtime for low power handheld devices. This make great sense, because these small screen interfaces normally use fancy animations with just a minimal input control set, and a lightweight runtime would allow MS to easily port SL to a large number of low power devices.
The apparent problem now is that SL is rather weighted with features -- many of which are appropriate only in larger screen environs, and this limits the potential device audience. This is likely why WP7 required a more robust engine. Perhaps a simple solution would be to offer WP7 with the full runtime, but publish lightweight runtimes for the rest of the mobile universe. This would give WP7 a control set edge, and at the same time, would allow most (efficiently coded) apps to cover the bulk of the device universe.
The iPhone and other market-significant proprietary boxes will quite likely be pressed by market forces or lawsuits into support other runtimes, such as Flash and SL. A lightweight runtime option makes SL more palatable to these vendors, since they wish to protect product performance perceptions, but at the same, wish to enjoy revenues from app sales. (Handled device suggestion)
Silverlight is not and never will be the one tool to use for all situations but it continues to be a very useful tool for many situations.
I'm typing this on a iPad and so I cant use many of my own Silverlight apps in the same way that Flash isn't available to me.
After lunch I'll go back to my desk and continue to work on my current Silverlight project which is the best tool for that particular project and environment with some support software being written in MVC2 for the web.
To get angry for being told Silverlight won't run on iPads and some other environments is madness, we already know this. If you want to hit every environment, use an open standard like H5 and accept the limitations that come with it. Judge on a project by project basis. (kaseciu pildymas)
HTML5 is a must have, there is no doubt about it, but it should not affect Silverlight in any way. (Martin)
I am not sure why so many people blame Microsoft for their commitment to Silverlight. It was quite clear from the beginning that Silverlight will be only available for Windows platform. I don't think this decision changed to much. If you stick with Widows platform you will be fine in any case. If you wanted to have a cross platform solution Silverlight was never a good choose or did some of you naively think that it will be ported to other platforms? (Aleximo)
I commited our development team and reputation to Silverlight. And now I have been left high and dry ! I am not really convinced by this Blog Post. The message is out there, Microsoft is adopting HTML5 in preference to developing Silverlight further. Microsoft are just going to let Silverlight die, after a couple more weak releases. Shopw me the Silverlight Roadmap for the next 5 years, on the Main Microsoft.com page, and maybe you will convince the Developer and their bosses that we have all not just adopted a turky technology.
I should have learn't from the J++ experiment.
I will never trust MS again. (No longer trust Microsoft)
I think some of you are missing the big picture. Whether or not Silverlight's direction has "shifted" or whether or not HTML5 is a full replacement is tangential at best to the point Bob made in his original quote.El panorama está dado...Hay otros elementos de gran interés, que en todo caso, irán en otro momento. Por ahora es suficiente. Un común denominador entre tantos desarrolladores del ecosistema de productos de Microsoft, es la nula referencia entre todos ellos a herramientas de desarrollo basado en modelos, o al menos, referencias a lenguajes específicos de dominio, a pesar que durante dos años el tema fue un caballo de batalla de Microsoft. Sin embargo, en el fárrago de lenguajes y arquitecturas, éste debiera ser el punto que les diera perspectiva y tranquilidad ante abruptos cambios de frente o apariciones de nuevas arquitecturas. Un elemento general es el sentido de decepción y vacío, frente a la inversión de horas y dinero, cuando el dueño de un producto los deja solos y sin respuesta. Una estrategia no recomendable, existiendo la alternativa del desarrollo basado en modelos, en el sabor que se desee.
Many of you have been saying Silverlight is "cross platform". If we were in the 90s, this would be right, it covers multiple browsers on the two largest operating systems.
Bob's comments are simple: web development is not about cross browsers, and it's definitely not about two operating systems. The ecosystem of web applications on a broad scale is widening greatly to include many new OSes, hardware types, form factors, screen sizes, hell even bandwidth assumptions are up in the air at this point.
If you wanted a "cross platform" web site or web application, Silverlight isn't and never was the right answer. The only difference between last week and this week is that Bob pointed out that it is infeasible to port Silverlight to all of these devices, form factors, and platforms. That should have been obvious to anyone knowledgable enough to be on this thread; him saying it is just a rubber stamp on something intuitively true.
This was true last week and it'll be true next week: If you're trying to come up with a desktop application that is loaded through a web interface, and you're okay with only supporting two operating systems, Silverlight will give you some nice bells and whistles for grander application. However, if you're looking to make a truly cross platform web solution, you need to be using HTML and its related standards and technologies. (ChrisC)