As the former Adobe compete lead inside Microsoft, allow me to retort lol :)
I dunno, its kinda wishy washy on the whole Adobe compete thing. As yes, MS shifting strategy looks like their a flaky bet, yet Adobe have consistently swapped and changed its strategy over the past few years from everything to ActionScript to Adobe Flex 3 vs Adobe Flex 4 architectural changes. Then there is the constant player updates due to plague of security issues blah blah. Approx 2/3rds of Flash population are still on ActionScript 2.0 not 3.0 not to mention the investment costs of tooling can get pretty heavy compared to Microsoft ..the list goes on. Adobe are aggressively pushing HTML5 and Flash side by side so they are facing the same "it depends" indecision as we face now with Silverlight? (Watch Adobe MAX 2010) ... On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Paul Du Bois <[email protected]> wrote: > Disagree. > > > > Two reasons for choosing Flash over SL have been heavily buffed by > Microsoft’s recent statements. > > > > 1. While MS is “shifting strategy”, Adobe remains committed to making > Flash cross-platform by pushing it onto more devices and operating systems. > So Flash will only become more ubiquitous than SL which means as Flash > developers can apply their skills in more places. > > 2. Adobe remains focused on improving and supporting Flash while MS is > off chasing HTML5 glory. > Flash is a core part of Adobe’s vision and product suite, where as SL seems > to be moving to the periphery. > As a developer and/or CIO/CTO, knowing that a company is committed to > supporting its proprietary platform is critical to investment decisions. > > > > Even in light of Bob and Steve’s “clarification” statements, Adobe wins big > time. > > I too am now in the camp of those wishing we’d gone Flash instead of > Silverlight. > > > > > > - Paul Du Bois > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jordan Knight > Sent: Tuesday, 2 November 2010 12:20 PM > To: ozSilverlight > Cc: ozSilverlight > > Subject: Re: Bob Muglias & Steve Balmers statements on committment to > Silverlight > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ ozsilverlight mailing list [email protected] http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
