Comments on: Apollo is Adobe’s edge over Silverlight

By: luv_myflash

luv_myflash — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:37:37 +0000

At first I’m a bit surprised when MS is developing Silverlight considering their first attempt on competing with Flash which is “Liquid Motion”. Although the promise that Silverlight gives is outstanding and I admit a very challenging one, I still root for my ol’ flash. Nothing beats those ol’ timelines and MovieClips. It might be too much for the asking but I think microsoft should give more time on improving Internet Explorer rather than meddling with RIA’s.

By: luv_myflash

luv_myflash — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:36:34 +0000

At first I’m a bit surprised when MS is developing Silverlight considering their first attempt on competing with Flash which is “Liquid Motion”. Although the promise that Silverlight gives is outstanding and I admit a very challenging one, I still root for my ol’ flash. Nothing beats those ol’ timelines and MovieClips. It might be too much for the asking but I think microsoft should give more time on improving Windows Explorer rather than meddling with RIA’s.

By: RJ

RJ — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:58:20 +0000

The “edge” microsoft has over Apollo is first and foremost WPF/E. This is a disadvantage as long as WPF/E stays stuck on the PC, but I’d be surprised if they don’t pull out a Mac version pretty soon. The graphics capabilities, specifically in the 3d space, are MUCH better with Silverlight/WPF than Apollo/Flash.

Microsoft’s other advantage is simple: cash. Microsoft is a GREAT development partner. They’ll bring you great and big clients, provide development support, and throw in a little cash if you’re willing to work with them. Adobe just doesn’t match that currently.

That being said, please understand that I’m the farthest thing from an MS fanboy. I’ve been consistently frustrated with them in the past, and I’m pretty skeptical of how this whole thing is going to turn out. I love Flex and have been overall pretty satisfied with it, but it’s all about building the best RIA for my clients. My company’s plan is to invest some time in research and developing in Silverlight so that we can do a good job comparing it to Flex on a deep level, and use it for clients where (read:if) it makes sense.

From an industry stand point, I think Silverlight is great. It’s going to up the ante and force Adobe to throw more and more great features in to flex and help Flex become a great open-source community platform. It’s a win-win, imho.

By: ToddP

ToddP — Mon, 21 May 2007 18:03:08 +0000

I’m not so sure MSFT is so far behind in Silverlight. They have a very advanced application development platform with WPF. Now, their watered-down version of Silverlight needs some improvements to to compete with Adobe Apollo (user input controls and installation as native apps). But it’s still Alpha. Regarding input controls, I’ve read around that MSFT will be implementing them in future release versions before going RTM. As far as native apps, goes, I’m not sure they’re that far behind, if they have a cross-platform browser plug-in, it might not be much work to port that to run outside the browser — and there’s even a System.WIndows.Application class in the Silverlight 1.1 stack, I don’t know what it’s for — yet — but I’m hoping it’s similar to Adobe’s mx:ApolloApplicattion that allows programs to be run outside the browser.
I’m not sure whether I’m going to trust just either Adobe or MSFT to deliver the cross-platform toolkit for developing light-weight applications. I know that having them compete in this space is a good thing: competition brings choice and innovation. I do like how Adobe announced that they plan on supporting Linux, as opposed to the MONO project announcing that they’re going to create Linux Silverlight. Also, Adobe’s installation for their runtime is so fast and simple. Microsoft’s is simple, but installing .NET 2.0 and .Net 3.0 can take some time (i’m not actually sure if .NET 3.0 is required for silverlight), and probably not even an issue in those corporate environments that push out system updates. Installing applications as native windowed applications is a good thing, though.
Apollo at it’s Alpha stage is more impressive than WPF, but don’t count MSFT out yet, there’s still some time.
I’ve written about my initial impression of playing with Silverlight at Microsoft’s Silverlight Disappoints, and I’m working on a new article regarding Adobe Apollo….if you’re interested in reading them. A prudent developer is going to follow both technologies.

By: david

david — Mon, 21 May 2007 17:42:16 +0000

Brandon,

Very good question. I’m sure you’re right that it will be a very different question for teams that are selecting an RIA platform for the first time, from teams who are trying to decide whether to stick with Flash or switch. I love Flex — hence the name of this blog — so I hesitate to play devil’s advocate, but I’d guess that one major reason to switch is to end up with a consistent toolset and language on client and server, which is a missing piece of the Flash/Flex puzzle right now.

By: Brandon Ellis

Brandon Ellis — Mon, 21 May 2007 17:28:08 +0000

Here’s the question I always ask – where is the incentive to move to Sivlerlight? Say in a perfect world it got on an even par with Flash/Flex/Apollo and was equally xPlatform. If it did no more than what those technologies can do why switch? Who would give up their learned skillset to learn another. I mean I think developers should constantly update their skillsets and learn new technologies. It only makes us more valuable but the point being – why?

No matter how good or bad Silverlight ends up being, I see a lack of user adoption being its biggest problem.

By: Dazzer

Dazzer — Mon, 21 May 2007 14:33:50 +0000

I wasn’t aware that WPF would be cross-platform? Hence Apollo’s edge still stays.

By: david

david — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:44:54 +0000

David,

I’m not sure WPF is comparable to the full feature set of Apollo. Is there a full implementation of the CLR for Mac?

By: David

David — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:43:19 +0000

Hi!
Actually, I’m not sure I agree with you when you say “I think it’s going to take Microsoft considerably longer to build the Silverlight version of Apollo”.
In fact, what you call “the Silverlight version of Apollo” is WPF. It already exists. Silverlight (which codename was WPF/E) is only a subset of WPF (if I understood well).

By: sam

sam — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:34:11 +0000

Wow, one of the most unconsidered posts on teh subject I’ve read in a while. Philo ?

Considering the HUGE push to opensource in every direction people are running from Microsoft faster than you can say boo. There is vitrually no chance that MS will produce something as complex as Flash, do you use it ? Or just Flex. Not a chance.

when you consider the massive popularity of Flash, the fanatical culture of Flash developers and their abhorence of MS the only people you are going to get using SilverLight are .Net programmers….can’t wait to see these guys hanging out with the designers. Pfft!

For flash developers, Flex, Appollo Philo, .exe, etc, staying on top is 25 hours a day. To think that people are going to learn this, jsut becuase MS are greedy, is just strange.

Media companies, web agencies, designers and developers are the biggest users of Flash, and they will not be chagning in a hurry.

Microsoft will have as much luck launching competition to Photoshop, Premier, Illustrator…..not a chance.