Hi Scott, >> It's exposing a lot of hidden conversations both internally and externally, is that good or bad?
I appreciate the work you put in while at Microsoft to make sure issues from guys like me were being raised internally (I mean that). The problem I had with this post isn't that you kicked off a good discussion about HTML5/Silverlight/WPF (which I agree needs to be had), it's that it was done by exposing those internal conversations, without full context or evidence. I care about Microsoft and the direction that they go in, and I care about progress, but I care a lot more about stability. I'm happy to have discussions that help define the direction and create progress, but airing internal issues damages stability. There are plenty of small ISV's and IT departments building Silverlight/WPF applications right now. A few days ago, they were pretty sure Microsoft had it all planned out and they were confident they were going in the right path. Now, assuming they've seen the news articles that picked up on your opinion piece, they're not confident. It puts business at risk. I care about that a lot more than I care about Silverlight v HTML 5 :) If you were just an Average Joe writing an opinion piece, it would be one thing. As a former insider, people take what you say a lot more seriously. And you weren't just airing your own opinions, you were airing opinions you claim to be from Microsoft. It's the difference between Average Joe writing a rant about the mining tax in The Advertiser's opinion section, and Mark Latham writing a rant in the AFR about the internal divides he's overheard within the Labor party on the mining tax. In the first case, no one listens. In the second case, employees at mining companies are worried about their jobs, they stop spending, and small businesses close down. Personally, I care less about the hurt feelings of governments and mining companies, and a lot about small businesses. I'd argue that for the sake of stability (plus just being a nice guy), it's better to leave internal conversations internal. I hope that explains where I'm coming from. I'm grateful for the work you did (and perhaps still do) as an influencer within Microsoft to improve things. I just don't think it was a good thing for the market to do it the way you did. Paul On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Scott Barnes <scott.bar...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hmm, I'm a little shocked of all people you wrote the below Paul ? (i > mean that with sincerity). > > You and i have had a few discussions around this space, you've shown > frustration that Silverlight has gotten more attention than WPF and so > on. The reality is that whether you agree or disagree with the way i > went about the approach I took, at the heart of it all is that kind of > conversation that yourself, others and myself have had over and over. > I initially started out with some venting tweets sitting in LAX after > reading yet another "great feedback, lets take that offline" dismissal > from some folks on an issue that another community member put forward. > I still stand by my decision as being one of good intentions for the > greater good of WPF/Silverlight and it's created a polarizing > conversation around the globe at the moment on this subject. It's > exposing a lot of hidden conversations both internally and externally, > is that good or bad? i honestly don't know, but i do know it needs to > be had. > > I knew the moment i posted it i'd expose myself to first character > attacks but also yeah, it does put parts of my career into a red flag > area - yet, thats ok, as long as we get to the root of what dead vs > alive is. > > You state that WPF is done? really, engineering wise sure, i can argue > that with you - there are some things i'd like to still see but that > aside, WPF is done. Now what? you've built it how do you then go to > market with it? market opportunity is 6million+ developers and we are > probably sitting at around 7% of that... is that done? when was the > last event you saw WPF being shouted from the roof tops about this > year? How was teched? get much out of the amounts of WPF discussions > there? What's the last Windows development campaign you saw? Seen any > Evangelists talk about WPF recently at your local User Group? > > Which is more popular, Wp7 or WPF at the moment? When Windows 7 came > out, did you hear much in the way of value propositions around WPF > development for the new Windows platform? even if it was the same as > Vista still, good opportunity isn't it? How much of the developer > share do you think Enterprise makes vs Consumer/Web? anyone have the > numbers on this one? i do... well according to Microsoft anyway... > > As for FUD? yeah i can buy into that, but i also don't see Microsoft > staff volunteering to support the claims out loud? i mean would it be > fair to say that's a career limiting move within the company? how do > you support this? grab a document or two and post that to the > interweb - yeah i could do that i guess, but then i'd cross a very > clear legal line or two. Its why it was posted on a blog, by > definition it's an opinion piece. You can choose - that being the > keyword - to believe it or not, but thats where I stand. > > Jose, Jordan, John etc are looking to get to the root of this, > Corneliu, David and i'm guessing others are more focused on the person > not the issue? what gains do we get with the later? sure put me in a > position of embarrassment that could work and you prove a point or two > (personally i've had a variety of people express their opinions about > me, i long since cared what others think years ago) that i'm flawed > but in the end did it change the outcome of this initial issue? > > > > Regards, > > Scott Barnes > > http://www.riagenic.com > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Paul Stovell <p...@paulstovell.com> > wrote: > >>> Wpf has had little or next to no investments beyond what the vs2010 > team > >>> needed and some basics from variety of community sources if any. It's > had > >>> zero marketing budget and wasn't even mentioned as a developer story in > win7 > >>> launches > > I get that feeling too, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. > > I really like that the changes in the latest version of WPF are driven by > > their own dog-fooding needs, rather than "guessing" at what their > customers > > might want. That's where the best frameworks come from. There are some > small > > things I'd like to see improved in WPF, but .NET 4.0 fixed most of my > > complaints and overall I'm pretty happy with it. A skeleton team of 3 > people > > and a chicken is probably fine, since it's already come so far. In short, > > it's not about being "dead", it's about recognizing that it's "done". > > If they had a spare 500 developers to work on it, what exactly would they > > do? I expect they'd be out of real problems to solve, so they'd invent > > problems to solve, and the framework would get bloated. I'm actually > quite > > happy with the idea of Microsoft taking some time to build their own > > applications on WPF, and letting it evolve slowly and properly. > > WPF has a nice market niche in the ISV/disconnected client world, a world > > that simply cannot use Silverlight/HTML5. That market is simply not as > big > > as the market of people building websites, and I don't think it needs to > be. > > WPF competes with Windows Forms/VB 6 and Cocoa, not HTML5 and Flash, so > I'm > > not sure it really needs a huge marketing budget. > > Now, to the thing that annoys me about this post. Having an opinion on > > HTML5/Silverlight/WPF and the direction they should go is one thing, and > > sharing those opinions on ways to improve can be helpful. But airing what > > you claim to be internal "Microsoft" laundry, while not actually sharing > any > > proof or enough context, and trading on your credentials as an "insider" > > just adds Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to the market. The post has plenty > of > > opinions and hyperbole, but no actual evidence to back it up. Despite the > > post, we can't be sure that Silverlight/WPF are going to "die", however > much > > you might think so. But what we can be sure about is companies that were > > about to start developing new applications are now going to be stuck in > > limbo because they're suddenly unsure of what's going to happen to the > > stacks they're building on. That's not good for the market, and I fail to > > see what "good" comes out of a post like this. > > Paul > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Scott Barnes <scott.bar...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Nice post Jordan ;) > >> My thoughts personally is there is room for both and I'm on record by > >> saying msft should consider using sl + ie together to handle the html5 > >> execution silently - it drives ubiquity and upholds both sides of the > isle. > >> Wpf has had little or next to no investments beyond what the vs2010 team > >> needed and some basics from variety of community sources if any. It's > had > >> zero marketing budget and wasn't even mentioned as a developer story in > win7 > >> launches. Declaring it dead is easy, burying the corpse is the hard part > ;) > >> Win8 team aren't taking bets on it so say what u will but either I am > >> right or msft tomorrow makes an official declaration of how they plan to > >> pump some momentum behind it. Either outcome is pushing the old with new > >> forward for a greater good and won't be suddenly dumped on everyones > laps at > >> a point where it's too late to steer a different direction. > >> Dead doesn't mean instantly gone it can take years - look at xp. It just > >> signals to all "get off or else" is all :/ > >> I am pro wpf / silverlight btw and want these to continue to grow > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from my mini iPad nano > >> (excuse my spilling and grammar as I have giant man like fingers and > this > >> device as small keys) > >> On 15/09/2010, at 11:17 AM, Jordan Knight <jak...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I'd also like to raise some points RE HTML5 and WPF/SL etc. > >> Back in the 1890's the head of the US patent office declared he was > going > >> to close the office because he thought that there was nothing left to > >> invent... rather short sighted given hindsight... > >> My point is that HTML5 will bring to the masses through standardisation > >> the features that consumers have come to demand thanks to agile plugins > like > >> SL and Flash. To quote the SL team blog post that flamed the debate - > >> SL/Flash trailblaze and HTML5 will then pave the road. These features > are > >> already out there and pervasive (demanded) - so why not standardise and > give > >> them the ultimate reach they deserve! Bravo - it's a really good idea, > and > >> consumers win. The stuff that was around years ago will now be available > >> through standards. > >> But there is new stuff now... that stuff has been done - tech moves on. > >> Where consumers *also* win is that SL and Flash are all about ideas and > >> tech that doesn't/didn't exist yet + getting it to market fast. It's a > >> playground for great ideas. 3D video. Surround sound, adaptive smooth > >> streaming (for the SL = video zealots). Multitouch, multi screen, multi > >> bloody everything. Rapid development (through Des/Dev workflows) + > awesome > >> tooling. > >> Consumers like apps too remember. They would much rather read their EPG > in > >> an app than have a link to a web page on their desktop. > >> And what about other ideas that don't really exist yet. To say that WPF > is > >> dead and/or dying - well I say to you - there is more to the world of UX > and > >> consumerism than just the browser/current thinking. I think that WPF is > >> _still_ ahead of its time. Tech/devices are moving wayyyyy too fast for > >> HTML5 spec to keep up with (what about this cheap new > >> device? > http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/13/microsoft-principal-researcher-bill-buxton-surface-will-be-in-h/). > .. > >> I think the HTML5 vs the world debate is forgetting about the consumer > >> app/hi-tech/new shiny device market - it will/(*is*) be hooooooge! And > we > >> need to keep the consumers happy (which means being nimble!). > >> HTML5 is great, bringing what we demand to spec. Yaay for Vimeo working > on > >> my iPhone! Plugins are great bringing us the latest tech quickly. And... > as > >> new screens are added (Surface, phones etc)... then you can be sure i'll > be > >> betting the farm on ripping out apps quickly on tech like WPF... > >> Cheap Surfaces, every shop... WPF = killer. > >> My 2 cents :) > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Tatham Oddie <tat...@oddie.com.au> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Even as the web standards zealot in the corner, I wouldn’t agree with > >>> many of Scott’s points. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Jordan Knight and I just discussed the relationship between HTML5 and > >>> Silverlight across two episodes of Frankly Speaking: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.noisetosignal.com.au/franklyspeaking/?p=256 > >>> > >>> http://www.noisetosignal.com.au/franklyspeaking/?p=260 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Tatham Oddie > >>> > >>> au mob: +61 414 275 989, us cell: +1 213 280 9140, skype: tathamoddie > >>> > >>> If you’re printing this email, you’re doing it wrong. This is a > computer, > >>> not a typewriter. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com > >>> [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of > >>> danlaz...@arcamis.com > >>> Sent: Tuesday, 14 September 2010 6:33 PM > >>> To: ozSilverlight > >>> Subject: Interesting article re: WPF/Silverlight/HTML5 on riagenic > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Via CodeProject 'Daily News' (14/09/2010) - > >>> http://www.riagenic.com/archives/363 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dr. Dan Lazner, PhD | Software Architect/Engineer/Developer > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ozsilverlight mailing list > >>> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > >>> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ozsilverlight mailing list > >> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > >> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ozsilverlight mailing list > >> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > >> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Paul Stovell > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ozsilverlight mailing list > > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ozsilverlight mailing list > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > -- Paul Stovell
_______________________________________________ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
