But let's not forget sl+flash are all About tomorrow :)

Cheers,

Jordan. 

On 01/11/2010, at 7:17 PM, "Shane Morris (Automatic Studio)" 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> To my mind all this noise re Silverlight v HTML5 does not really affect the 
> Silverlight v Flash argument. The reasons to choose Flash or Silvelright are 
> pretty much the same today as they were last week. The only change is a 
> slight dip in confidence in MS's commitment to further innovation going 
> forward, I guess. But for an organisation that made its platform decision 
> based on what exists today rather than what might be coming, I feel like 
> nothing much has changed?
> 
>  
> 
> Shane
> 
>  
> 
> From: [email protected] 
> [[email protected]] on behalf of Grant Maw 
> [[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 November 2010 11:19 AM
> To: ozSilverlight
> Subject: Re: Bob Muglias & Steve Balmers statements on committment to 
> Silverlight
> 
> And there'll be a lot more like Barry if this isn't dealt with quickly, and 
> with finality.
>  
> We have a client who has invested heavily in a SL app at our recommendation. 
> It took us a very long time to convince them that SL was the right tool for 
> the job, and even after all that we are still getting the "why didn't we use 
> Flash" argument flaring up from time to time. This latest development has the 
> potential to make us look pretty darned foolish when our customers get wind 
> of it.
>  
> I believed at the outset that we made the right call, and I still do, but 
> now, just as SL is getting wider acceptance, things like this happen and as a 
> result we are going to have to go through all the old arguments once again 
> with a new app that is proposed for next year.
>  
> We have invested heavily in SL, and so have our customers, on the premise 
> that the platform would be around for the long haul. Statements like 
> Muglia's, followed further by a "clarification" that is more spin than 
> substance, and a meaningless statement from Ballmer do very little to put the 
> cat back into the bag. Hard facts, and more detail about future development 
> of the product (and it's tooling) over the next 5 years would go a long way 
> to restoring confidence.
> 
> On 2 November 2010 09:18, Barry Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think it's at this stage that I will unsubscribe from this list and give up 
> on Silverlight for the moment as "irrelivant", perhaps checking back later.
>  
> I was hoping SL would be able to produce worthwhile interfaces to the clunky 
> rubbish found in products like Dynamics CRM but I just can't see the buy-in 
> from that division to do much with SL and those products.
>  
> Bye all. Have fun.
>  
> Barry Beattie
>  
> 
> 
>  
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> It's amusing to see how many times Steve Balmer name dropped 'Silverlight' in 
> his post :).  Backpedalling ahoy!
> 
> My concern from the beginning has specifically been with the phrase “Our 
> Silverlight strategy and focus going forward has shifted".  Bob says that's 
> not a negative statement in his post, but I disagree.  Microsoft "shifted" 
> their strategy away from Windows Mobile, and look what happened with it - 
> practically nothing for years.  After Microsoft released IE6 their strategy 
> "shifted" - again work on that product halted for years.  It wasn't like 
> either of them were perfect, and couldn't have done with more work!
> 
> It was easier to brush off Scott Barnes' tweets as those of an ex-softie that 
> *might not* have the current full picture and strategic insight of Microsoft, 
> but harder when the controversy stems from the current president of the 
> Server and Tools division.  You could say that it was simply a bad choice of 
> words, but added to Scott Barnes' tips starts painting a bad picture for 
> Silverlight's future.  Stating that their strategy has shifted sends the 
> wrong message to CTOs, and creates the PR nightmare we are all faced with now.
> 
> Personally, I still have faith in Silverlight and its potential (both current 
> and future), and evidence showed that Microsoft shares it too (LightSwitch, 
> Windows Phone 7, etc).  I just hope that Microsoft continues to see that 
> potential through before chucking it on the backburner, and doesn't abuse 
> that faith.  Currently they have a rather demoralised community, and it's 
> going to take a lot to prop it back up.  Because those of us promoting 
> Silverlight will have a lot more work to do to now promoting the platform.
> 
> If one good thing comes from this controversy, it is that the community has 
> spoken, and it will *not* be happy with a shift in strategy.  Maybe, just 
> maybe, that will impact positively internally at Microsoft.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> On 2 November 2010 07:19, Winston Pang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Man do you ever sleep? Haha you seem to operate in US time.
> 
> Bobs post seems to be getting some interesting replies...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 02/11/2010, at 5:28 AM, Jose Fajardo <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Here's Microsoft's official statements
>> 
>> 
>> Bob Muglia has posted extensively on the Silverlight Team Blog:
>> http://team.silverlight.net
>> 
>>  
>> Steve Ballmer has also commented on his PDC blog:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/nov10/11-01Statement.mspx
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> .... either believe them or not completely up to you guys!
>> 
>> 
>> Note:  The information contained in this message and any attachment to it is 
>> privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the reader of 
>> this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent 
>> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are 
>> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
>> communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this 
>> communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to 
>> the message, and please delete it from your system.  Thank you.  Cynergy 
>> Systems.
>> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ozsilverlight mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ozsilverlight mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ozsilverlight mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ozsilverlight mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ozsilverlight mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
_______________________________________________
ozsilverlight mailing list
[email protected]
http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight

Reply via email to