Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Silverlight 2 final set for this summer, won't play Flash video

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

April 4, 2008, 1:17 PM

Microsoft developer Ashish Thapliyal has published a roadmap for the Silverlight 2 Web platform, confirming a final launch scheduled for the summer, and noting that Silverlight won't be able to play back .flv Flash video files.

Silverlight 2.0 Beta 1 made its debut at MIX 08 last month with a limited non-commercial license. Beta 2 is slated for release this quarter and will allow developers to launch commercial applications built atop the platform. Microsoft typically lets developers to do this with its near-finished betas using what it calls a "Go-Live" license.

Beta 2 will contain what Microsoft calls "breaking changes," in which code developed for Beta 1 may not work properly with the update. However, the company notes that Beta 2 to final RTM will not contain drastic changes and few features will be added.

Applications developed for Silverlight 1.0 will work for customers using the Silverlight 2.0 runtime, and although 1.0 is shipping separately now, once 2.0 is completed Microsoft will migrate to the new release. "There is only one Silverlight so all the capabilities of 1.0 will be unified in the 2.0 release," wrote Thapliyal.

The final release of Silverlight 2.0 should arrive later this summer, but Microsoft hasn't specified an exact timeframe. However, Beta 2 will serve as a broad testbed for the final bits, as online content and video for the 2008 Beijing Olympics will be broadcast using Silverlight 2. This will get the beta tested on potentially hundreds of millions of computers, and Microsoft can correct any problems in time for RTM.

While Microsoft isn't yet prepared to disclose the final set of controls that will be available to developers in Silverlight 2, the company is clear on one point: it won't play Adobe's Flash files. It's a logical question, since most video online is in the Flash format, but Microsoft cites licensing issues and the size of the Silverlight download as reasons not to support it.

"[Silverlight] doesn't support arbitrary codecs since those get complicated from a licensing perspective (Microsoft needs to pay the owners of those formats royalties), and they also dramatically increase the size of the download (which we want to keep small to enable really easy deployment)," explained Thapliyal. "Currently the alternative to this is Expression Media Encoder. It will have support for taking different formats like flv and converting them into Silverlight supported formats."

What's next for Silverlight? Microsoft is still developing a mobile version of the software, but has set no timetable for its release. Thapliyal says the company is also working on a plan for Silverlight 3 (referred to as v.Next), but has nothing to announce at the current time.

Add a Comment (40 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By bourgeoisdude

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 3:39 PM

Was silverlight 2.0 ever supposed to play flash video? I mean, wouldn't Adobe have to give MS permission to do that anyway?

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Apr 6, 2008 - 12:42 PM

Silverlight 2 beta 1:

http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Apr 5, 2008 - 5:59 PM

Now of they would just eliminate Quicktime, they would have a good system because quicktime is junk and can easily be hacked.

Score: 0

By Paradise-FH-

posted Apr 6, 2008 - 12:08 PM

again ... what the hell are you talking about?

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Apr 6, 2008 - 12:30 PM

Quicktime has had security issues since day one. Do your own research and do it on other than Apple fanboys sites.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 2:49 PM

I think he's asking how is your post relevant to this discussion of a completely unrelated technology?

Score: 0

By tscar13

edited Apr 6, 2008 - 12:42 PM

Silverlight 2 Beta 1 has been released and it is free and will remain free. Finally, it can't be any worse than flash or quicktime.

Score: 0

By Paradise-FH-

edited Apr 6, 2008 - 12:07 PM

what the hell are you talking about? Beta 2 hasn't been released and why in the world would it not be free?

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 8:53 AM

Given the fact that MS will probably release a new OS next year, this will include the guts of Vista without the problems and also Silverlight so, in a way Silverlight is priced in for the next OS. Gates has said that they are moving quicker on the new OS and will release it sooner than what was planned. I suspect that it will be timed to be released when the support for XP runs out next June (2009)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 10:08 AM

MSFT has stated publicly that Silverlight will not be automatically installed in any way and will continue to be offered as a download only.

I would guess that it won't be included in Vienna.

If it does hit decent market-share by the version *after* Vienna, I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the OS install, but I would be surprised to see it in Vienna.

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 1:34 PM

I respect your opinion PC but there are ways to include it in next years OS but still make it optional if one follows custom install. I may be wrong but I think MS would be foolish not to include it so I think, while some think they are foolish, they will break down and include it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 2:28 PM

Included in a custom install!=included in default install.

Most folks probably wouldn't have a problem with MSFT if they offered a custom install option for Silverlight. Hell, allow it for IE, OE, and WMP, for that matter.

But, IMO, you implied default install in your previous comment. If you did not, my bad, may I offer my deepest apologies?

Score: 0

By tscar13

edited Apr 7, 2008 - 3:47 PM

No not a default but during set-up on Ms OS's you can choose custom install and I think though with the latest information on the new fixes that may change that they will allow the installer to choose whether or not to install. But I think the default setting, if they go that route, will be not to install.

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Apr 6, 2008 - 12:34 PM

yes it has and I am using it right now. idiot. Go to Ms site and find it yourself.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 7:04 PM

well since Silverlight is a direct competitor with Flash I didn't expect it to play flash videos.

Score: 0

By pitdingo2

posted Apr 5, 2008 - 6:27 AM

sure, why use the standard when you can invent your own format, get it rubber stamped by the ECMA, and now even buy your way through ISO. What is next for M$, bribe their way into OASIS?

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Apr 5, 2008 - 12:06 PM

Its ok if Apple does it though, right?

Songs purchased from itunes can only be played on ipods...

Why would they make it flash compatible, they would have to pay licensing fees?

Its obvious you really have no clue what you are talking about, you are on some vendetta against MS, not sure if Bill Gates raped your mom or what but seriously get a job, a friend anyone to stop your typical ranting on everything MS.

Score: 0

By pitdingo2

posted Apr 5, 2008 - 3:49 PM

did Apple bribe their way into getting their proprietary formats passed through _any_ standards committees? Did not think so. You fail.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 9:21 AM

Did MSFT?

Score: 0

By Zulithe

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 5:23 PM

well silverlight 2 beta 1 doesn't work with firefox 3. So, yeah. Hurry up and release beta 2, MS!!

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 9:47 AM

One could say the Firfox should hurry up with their beta instead of MS. After all, it's up to 3rd party software to make adjustments or in this case a beta browser.

Score: 0

By sumone

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 2:18 PM

All the interoperability lip service vanishes from Microsoft when it comes to audio-video.

Score: 0

By Ransh

edited Apr 10, 2008 - 1:44 PM

seriously?
WMV existed way before FLV was created.
It was Macromedia who chose a propriety format and not to support one of the standard formats (quicktime, rm, avi, wmv).
So why would anyone else need to support their format? it isn't that good anyway.

There's one thing microsoft does better than anyone else, their dev tools and anyhing else led by Scott Guthrie. Silverlight is much better than flash, easier to develope, and an open, xml based, format.
Adobe and Apple are just as bad as MS, Google also, it's all corporations who want to make money, don't be fooled by your jealousy driven hatred of MS and Bill Gates

Score: 0

By pitdingo2

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 2:28 PM

amazing isn't it?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 4, 2008 - 6:46 PM

You're an idiot.

Just as Flash requires a plugin to play, so will Silverlight.

Someone can come up with a flash/silverlight plugin.

Expecting either companies plugins to support a competing format is pretty much the type of pure jackassery we've come to expect from you, though. (at least when it comes to MSFT. I've never once heard you whine and carry on about the iPods inability to play common OSS formats)

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 1:36 PM

ok. I can't keep up with how this forums lays out replies. Are you referring to me PC as a Jackass?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 2:31 PM

No, that was to the poster directly above mine, El Dingo.

:)

I haven't really an opinion on you yet. :p

What browser are you using, out of curiosity? The layout seems pretty straight forward to me (means nothing, I'm *not* normal).

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 3:49 PM

Laughing, most would say the same of me. but I am using Firefox with only a few add-ons- the ones that are signed by the developer.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 8, 2008 - 9:00 AM

Feh...

I could sign an add-on for pete's sake.

Peer review, man. :)

Score: 0

By billweh

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 2:34 PM

Does this mean that Adobe should start supporting Expression Media encoded video in their player?

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 3:52 PM

If you are an Adobe fanatic, go to Cnet and get their shinny new advertising paid media player. It sucks but fanatics seem not to mind.

Score: 0

By pitdingo2

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 5:25 PM

why would they? The closed, proprietary, patent encombered M$ format is not used by anyone. Like the article said, Flash Video is used everywhere.

M$ argued M$OOXML was needed because Office is so widely used. Guess the same does not apply to Flash Video, eh?

Score: 0

By AnthonySPT

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 9:10 PM

>>The closed, proprietary, patent encombered M$ format is not used by anyone.

Actually the MS format is VC1, is a standard and is the most used format in the world, including being the most used on the Internet, still surpassing even Flash.

Silverlight plays VC1 (WMV) content without a plugin or the need for Windows Media Player.

VC1 is WMV9 approved as a standard, and is used by virtually every studio in the world, as it is the preferred format for HD Video i.e. BluRay, Online, etc...

(MPEG4 and VC1 are the ONLY TWO standard HD formats, with most companies prefer VC1 because of quality, size, and encoding speed, so most content is distributed in VC1.)

So next time you see a BluRay Disc, remember it is using that 'crap MS format that nobody uses' - geesh.

Now for your next trick, tell everyone the Sky is made of Blueberry Jello, it would be as accurate as your other post.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 4:27 PM

For God sake shut up already.

Score: 0

By uhohzombies

edited Apr 5, 2008 - 9:49 PM

STFU please. Replacing the S in Microsoft with dollar signs is so juvenile and 10 years ago.

Score: 0

By GeneralLeoFF

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 7:50 PM

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Score: 0

By slimy

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 2:07 PM

Found via: http://arstechnica.com/j...late-summer-release?bub

Score: 0

By tangentlin

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 1:32 PM

Wish Microsoft luck with SL 2.0. As far as I see in the demo, Silverlight 2.0 is far from complete to compete with Flash in terms of performance, event model and design/developer integration. It may make sense for some developers, but it collaboration with designer is still well in its infancy. Yet the presentation layer is heavily depending on designers.

Score: 0

By AnthonySPT

posted Apr 7, 2008 - 9:17 PM

-- It may make sense for some developers, but it collaboration with designer is still well in its infancy.
--

I have to disagree... Silverlight is based on WPF (.NET 3.0) and is not only a rich graphical animation system, but language agnostic letting developers have more ability and control than Flash could ever imagine.

You can treat Silverlight objects on a web page like Picture objects, and they can cross communicate to each other, run through PHP or ASP, and even work in AJAX contexts as they are defined and accessible document objects, that can be manipulated server side by any pre-processing technology and client side by Jscript, fitting into web standards.

No actionscript, or learning a new syntax, even the objects themselves can be programmed with any .NET language from C# to VB.

Maybe our development team is seeing Silverlight as better than it is, but compared to Flash, it is not only more mature with regard to security being .NET based(see recent hack contest) but offers virtually unlimited usage and programming senerios, and on top of that understand graphics and animation drawing that is beyond PDF, Flash, etc. because of its inherent support for most of the WPF (XAML) based drawing technology designed into Vista that handles everything from screen to printer.

Score: 0

By Ransh

posted Apr 10, 2008 - 1:52 PM

you can also use python, ruby and other languages to program against silverlight, since .Net support that.
as far as developers are concerened, this is a much better solution than having to learn actionscript and work with the awful dev tools that are out there.

I don't know if the expression tools are bettter than flash for graphic designers and animators, but because your simply creating an xml file, I'm sure lots of 3rd party softwares will be available (like all the export plugins from other tools)

and it's so easy to generate xaml on the fly from any server side language

Score: 0

Oct 13 - 1:03 PM ET Final Silverlight 2.0 to ship tomorrow

Oct 13 - 11:57 AM ET CBS goes after Hulu by aligning with YouTube

Oct 13 - 11:25 AM ET Microsoft finds published exploit of Vista privilege elevation hole

Oct 11 - 11:16 AM ET Things left unsaid, in a recent interview with Sony's CEO

Oct 11 - 11:03 AM ET EU regulations block Italian ISPs from blocking Pirate Bay

Oct 11 - 10:55 AM ET Making it to Apple's App Store by staying out of court

Oct 10 - 7:43 PM ET Wal-Mart changes its mind, leaves existing DRM servers up

Oct 10 - 7:05 PM ET Hands on: An amateur photographer tests out Adobe's latest Lightroom

Oct 10 - 6:52 PM ET Mobile service providers brace for the economic storm

Oct 10 - 6:24 PM ET Apple warns users about bad Nvidia graphics chips