Microsoft Flash Smack Talk
Not to court controversy……….but here’s some controversy :). At the Microsoft Technology Summit, Chris Anderson and Don Box (former architects of Windows Presentation Foundation and Windows Communication Foundation, respectively) talked about their Rich Internet Application strategy and specifically a lot about Flash. Ben Galbraith has the full rundown but here are a few choice quotes:
Q: How does your WPF stack compare to Adobe’s Flash/Flex stack?
Chris: Three aspects — the graphics visualization engine, the run-time platform, and the application frameworks.
App platform: We’re kinda sucking in that space. We’re pushing out samples, etc. You can see hints as to our direction, but we don’t even have an MFC-style system inside of WPF. We have a lot of work to do in this area. This is top of the mind and my #1 thing as to what is missing and is needed to make WPF a compelling app platform.
Run-time platform: The CLR crushes the Flash runtime, but IE is weak compared to Flash.
Graphics viz: We have a much better story here as far as actually having a full-scale platform that goes from the client with WPF/E all the way to the OS with WPF.
Don: “The decisions we make are often test constrained.†On one team we have three testers for every one developer.
Chris: The decision to do all rendering in WPF/E in software was an engineering decision, not an evil decision to force you to WPF for perf.
Chris: To make it clear, I think we are going to win in this space.
Q: “Why do you say that Flash is evil but somehow WPF/E is good?â€
Chris: We’ve made our intentions clear with WPF/E; we’re not pretending [like Adobe is with Flash] that it is some kind of open standard. People are saying that Flash is good and WPF/E is evil, but we actually think our story is better [for the community] here.
It’s interesting to hear them speak so candidly, in fact it may be the first time I’ve heard people from Microsoft directly talk about Flash as a competitor. It’s good to see that they’re fired up, but they have a long way to go. The things that Adobe has been able to pull of with Flash are nothing short of phenomenal. And with Apollo, Adobe is taking Flash right into Microsoft’s domain; the desktop.
I think we’re in for an interesting, and hopefully boundary pushing few years.
[tags]WPF, Flash, WPF/E, Microsoft, Adobe, Chris Anderson, Don Box[/tags]
Posted in Rich Internet Applications
March 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I agree with you, MS has a LOOOOONNNGGG way to go.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Ever get one of those moments where you just go … this is only going to hurt..
-
Scott Barnes
Developer Evangelist
Microsoft - Who loves WPF/e but firmly agrees with Ryans thoughts.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
After reading the post and considering the context, I wouldn’t call it smack talk; the Microsoft Technology Summit forum allows them to be really frank with the audience. They even had some truthful and negative things to say about what they themselves designed.
Although they have to be mindful that their words will be posted on someone’s blog and maybe taken out of context. It could seem that they are belittling the Flash platform but I think based on their frame of reference, they are just being honest.
You also have to keep in mind they see things from where they are to where they are going, including the things they can’t talk about.
This is not a zero sum game people, let’s not feed into the hype.
It’s all for the good of our users!
March 26th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
How exactly is Adobe pretending anything with flash in relation to WPF/E? From my point of view Adobe has DELIVERED already with flash as being more “open” than WPF/E. Flash player is is available TODAY on Windows, Mac and Linux with full functionality on all 3 platforms. Flex can be coded and compiled on all 3 platforms TODAY, their IDE is available on WIndows and Mac. TODAY. Apollo Alpha is available on Mac and Windows with Linux support promised shortly after Apollo 1.0 is released.
With WPF/E we have a Windows Plugin, a half-assed Mac Plugin(and given Microsoft’s track record, a product they could let stagnate or kill off at any moment.) and they are basically giving the finger to Linux. Also there are no SDK’s or IDE’s available(or even planned?) to create WPF/E apps except on Windows.
As a developer I can’t support WFP/E due to Microsoft’s horrible past and continuing track record against its competitors/partners not to mention their often acute bouts of NIH syndrome.
As a user of an alternate platform(Mac) I cannot allow Microsoft to take away my ability to experience the web/RIA’s as a first class citizen in the future.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Controversy
Microsoft is not multi-platform, it doesn’t work even on Firefox, Adobe is more and more multi-platform.
Totally agree with you Ryan.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Reading things like this is what gets me out of bed at 3AM to go back to work on Flex. Because I want to help crush WPF into dust.
WPF is just the latest whim of a few managers at MS who think they know what they’re doing. They’ll get distracted by the next shinny thing to come along.
Besides, who comes up with a product name that sounds like WTF?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:30 am
I know you just pulled some quotes, but this one makes very little sense. Since when has Microsoft’s story *ever* been “better for the community”? “here ya go, mr. developer…have an entire integrated stack from OS to IDE and that’s all you’ll ever need. we’ll take care of everything in between for you…now go write code and we’ll eventually make sure you can deploy it on any client. yep, any client running windows ;-)”
Compelling, if you don’t give a lick about attempting to deploy to the widest possible audience…
March 27th, 2007 at 5:58 am
Ryan, I’m having a hard time figuring out Flex and Apollo.
I can work through introductory tutorials, but I don’t see a path I can take to get from newbie to being able to create stuff like Finetune.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:49 am
I guess I have questions beyond that.
Why do web applications need to be ‘rich’ to begin with?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:52 am
What, in your mind, are shining examples of what RIAs can and should be?
Why isn’t this blog an RIA? Wordpress doesn’t even use Ajax to add comments without a page reload.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Nice way to rally the troops Ryan.
I hope this doesn’t turn too nasty, I remember the .Net/Java wars, I used to love hating Java guys and they loved hating .Net/.Net developers/MS.
The java guys were and some still are particularly pompous and uppity.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:17 am
@Marlon You’re right, and I was hoping I conveyed that. I love the candid conversation. I wish I was there
And I wasn’t trying to rally anyone. I’m innocent! 
Warren, you absolutely hit it on the head with this:
“I can work through introductory tutorials, but I don’t see a path I can take to get from newbie to being able to create stuff like Finetune.”
It is REALLY hard to do. And it shouldn’t be. I saw stuff with Microsoft’s Blend tool that makes it really EASY to do stuff like that. More on it later this week hopefully.
But your question about rich is a decent one. I think good, rich software is a better experience. Design is important, and by building richer apps we can present information better and make things more usable.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:39 am
I’m just kinda thinking out loud, I hope you don’t mind.
Maybe a killer app for RIAs is situations where you have a lot of state (like, for instance, DabbleDB). Suppose you decide to maintain that clientside.
You can do it with Javascript. But could you do it more easily with Flex? Could you do it without tearing out your hair when you try to get it to work in IE6?
So the question is, does Flex scale up to complex presentation logic?
March 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Microsoft may have a long way to go, but I don’t think they are terminally behind. I believe after review the cool flex/apollo stuff that RIA’s in general have a long way to go in general and Microsoft has plenty of time in the space to catch up.
Is there a killer App for RIAs? That is doubtful, RIA’s have been around since the IE 4 time (in the most general definition of them_. I do think that RIAs have to be as useful as regular apps that are not internet enabled and feature rich.
In that context we still have a long way to go (for instance the internet word processor that has been mentioned as being revolutionary). People are used to bloatware and very rich feature sets. I think it’s finally time that regular apps start becoming extended with more internet functionality.
That is the one thing that was stiffled development wise due to the issues with Microsoft “anti-trust” suite. Microsoft was forced to put this kinda stuff on hold till someone else did it and created new technologies or approaches.
I think when we talk about Flex and Apollo we rarely talk about anything but cool presentation capabilities. We don’t talk about under-the-hood function because just the basics are there right now.
Finally the dialog is going on as to what should be “under-the-hood” at both Microsoft and Adobe. It’s too bad they both are thinking “proprietary” and not open standards for all of this. Just think if we had one open standard that everyone could write to that worked “under-the-hood”. I don’t mean open source necessarily either. If we can use XML everywhere, why can’t we have an agreed upon set of standards under the hood here that everyone could interoperate to even if there are closed-source platform implementations.
After all we are talking about an INTERNET standard, not a platform specific standard, even at this level.
I believe Adobe RIA, Java, and .Net (and mono) should have some sort of iteroparational layer that they can at least talk to each other pass message and can work together. I would like to use the best of “ALL WORLDS”..
This is just a thought but to me we all have a long way to go..
March 27th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
There is an interoperational layer that enables them to talk to each other, and it will be called ColdFusion 8
Haha…
March 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
That “Flash is evil” quote annoyed me. 24 hours later, neither Anderson nor Box has either claimed or disavowed it, whether at their own blogs or in comments at Ben’s:
http://www.simplegeek.com/
http://pluralsight.com/blogs/dbox/
Here’s a clear explanation of the “knife the baby” reference:
http://www.businessweek.com/microsoft/updates/up81105b.htm
jd/adobe
March 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Just some minor points.
- The folks in question are passionate about what they are working on and I know, it sends some mixed signals to the folks whom are happy with Flash that Microsoft are about to open a can of whoopass on Adobe (which isn’t the case at all).
- In all fairness, going from blank file status to where WPF/e is today (and where it will be soon), I’ll give credit and simply say that they are doing a great job and looking forward to seeing the baked result.
- WPF/e will work on OSX and Windows Platforms in all browsers (Just like Flash).
- WPF/e will have weaknesses and strengths just like FLash will have both and it will come down to the developers in all camps whom decide whats worthy and what’s not. Microsoft and Adobe can each market to their hearts content but ultimately it will be the devs & designers whom decide (good thing).
- JD i know you think Microsoft is simply going to bully their way into the industry which is your opinion but a little ‘dramatic’ if you ask me ;P
- Adobe aren’t looking to play nice with Microsoft, so it’s a little on both sides (ie notice why Flex Data Services doesn’t support .NET and Coldfusion does? could there be a push to drive CF adoption vs ASP.NET maybe?)
- Sorry to say this out loud and clear folks, but Adobe vs Microsoft thing is going to happen a lot as whilst Microsoft are entering the runtime space, the actual intent of WPF/e initially is to provide the .NET developer community a wider reach in X-Platform and Multimedia.
Maybe if Adobe supported .NET more then we’d have a different discussion and folks like The Midnight Coder’s (WebORB) would have a different business model.
-
Scott Barnes
Evangelist
Microsoft - I’m just a guy who gets paid to look at the bigger picture and blog it
April 5th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Understanding Flash Smack…
Understanding Flash Smack: Ever since Ryan Stewart pointed to the notes by Ben Galbraith of a presentation by two Microsoft staffers, I’ve been trying to understand the quotes “flash is evil”, “we are going to win” and so on. This report by David …
April 5th, 2007 at 8:58 am
My explanation of why Flash isn’t an open format here:
http://weblogs.asp.net/jezell/archive/2007/04/05/jd-confused.aspx
As far as the tech is concerned, WPF is an amazing application development platform. Having had the chance to work with it a bit, it really is light years beyond anything else that is available. Although Flash will retain a small edge on MS in the graphical wow department, WPF/E blows the doors of Adobe’s approach with support for things like a real programming language (C#) and the same development paradigm and tools that the vast majority of developers are going to be using. The number of copies of Visual Studio sold each year easily dwarf any numbers Adobe is going to be pulling out any time soon in relation to Flash and Flex.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
WPF is awesome and very light-weight to build to. Yes its restricted to Windows Platforms but overall it’s great product to bend/mould and work to.
That being said, although Microsofts empire is quite strong so to speak, never discount the power of what Adobe can provide to the folks on the street.
Take some of the Web 2.0 concepts today, it proves that it only takes one good idea and others will follow. So, both camps need to push each other further to get more innovation on the technology table and let us dev’s decide the outcome on the day.
-
Scott / Microsoft.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Thanks for the info Kredi…
October 12th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
As far as the tech is concerned, WPF is an amazing application development platform.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Although Flex is good, I really doubt if making the source open is going to kick-start a large scale adoption of this technology.
This sounds like a decision made by a manager who’s teenage son mentioned the term ‘Open Source’ during the dinner time conversation.