After MLBAM CEO Bob Bowman’s gushing review of Flash to CNET earlier this week, the Silverlight team fired back.
Arguing that the penetration argument (Flash is installed on 99% of internet connected computers versus Silverlight’s 50%) most use when citing the advantages of Flash over Silverlight is BS, Microsoft’s Steve Sklepowich pointed to the adoption of Swarmcast’s plugin which powers MLB’s high definition streams as well as several examples of Silverlight use on large scale sports events to show that Silverlight isn’t done yet.
We’ve been pretty critical of Silverlight here in recent months, but I have also been pleasantly surprised on a number of occasions. It has held up very well in my experience watching CBS’s NCAA MMOD this year, and during the inauguration their HD streams on CBS syndicates were about as good as you could get if it hadn’t been for those pesky infrastructure issues which caused just about every CDN to throttle even their largest clients.
The bottom line is that this is new technology. Penetration should not be the largest selling point for determining what technology to use for online video, though when it comes to the player, ease of install and range of use are critical. Microsoft faces continued growing pains as they roll out new versions of Silverlight as quickly as they can, making previous versions obsolete and trying to compete with Flash which has a committed base of developers.
Because Flash is ubiquitous on the web, both as a development platform and as a player for video, most of us use Flash on a daily basis, because it has been around so long there are rarely issues upgrading. Silverlight, on the other hand I find myself using every couple of months, when I do, I usually need to upgrade. A major selling point for Bowman and for me was this ease of install, Silverlight requires an administrator to install, Flash doesn’t.
The key for Silverlight if it wants to compete with Flash is not only signing up large clients in order to build it’s install base, it is making Silverlight a competitive development platform which can be used to create rich interactive experiences. This has been pitched since Silverlight’s introduction but has yet to materialize.
Back when video was separate from the rest of web content, downloadable players like Windows Media Player and RealPlayer could compete as separate entities. As more applications become entirely browser-based, all-around development functionality is becoming the core determinant of value. Flash is a great app not just because it plays video but because it has so many other useful development functions, and Silverlight has a very high bar to reach before it can really compete.
It seems to me that both Flash and Silverlight are coming up short when it comes to consumers. People want portability for their content, yet there isn’t an easy way to take flash or silverlight with you. DVD and media bridge manufacturers need to get special permission to support this content on the TV. Consumers would be much better off adopting a downloading solution instead of streaming, even if streaming seems like it’s easier to them.
You make a good point Davis. Part of it, I think, is the issue of hardware manufacturers and content distributors who want to keep control over where the content is viewed because these existing players have so much vested in the current monetization model of DVD and TV.
So far Apple is the only company that has been able to offer the portability you describe, and they do it with Quicktime downloads. But I still think that as all content becomes IP distributed and all devices become IP connected at all times, immediacy is key.
That’s the part I don’t understand. If you’re Sony, I can see why offering a downloadable solution isn’t very appealling, but if you’re Samsung or Toshiba, how does only supporting streaming help them? The cost of adding an ethernet connection and a chip capable of playing HD content (VC-1, H.264, etc.) adds about $10 – $20 per machine, but these HD machines are selling for $100+ more then non ethernet solutions.
Take Netflix’s upcoming TV with LG as an example. Consumers will have to shell out big bucks, while the manufacturer makes profit margins that are obscene and we still don’t have the right to play downloaded content on the device. I suppose that incorporating ethernet support into every device negates some of the need for downloading vs. streaming, but as a consumer I want control over my own video files. I don’t like that if Hulu decides that a program has been on there too long they can pull it or if Netflix movies go to TV, they aren’t available via streaming.
If the gadget makers would support a neutral third party standard instead of the data silos like Silverlight, Flash and Quicktime, consumers would be much closer to gaining access to this portability. We’re seeing some manufacturers adopt this slowly yet surely, but companies like Adobe and Microsoft haven’t even addressed this. Given their vast resources and relationships with content owners and gadget makers, it boggles my mind that this seems to be a market that no one wants to tap into. You can be on 99.9% of the PCs out there, but it doesn’t do you any good unless you can make it onto my TV.