Silverlight vs. Adobe Flash

It's has always been apparent that Microsoft's Silverlight was intended to be the IT giant's answer to Flex, and most obviously -- Adobe. Originally, Silverlight manipulated its multimedia interface through the use of JavaScript.

The newly-released Silverlight 3.0, however, is not only more advanced than previous versions, but also now enables mobile device support, among other things. Some returning -- though improved -- characteristics also include animation, vector graphics, and audio-video playback that characterize rich Internet applications.

For as long as it's been in existence, Microsoft has developed, manufactured, licensed, and supported a wide range of software products for computers, with the most profitable products being the Microsoft Windows operating system and the Microsoft Office suite software. Adobe, on the other hand, has historically focused upon the creation of multimedia and creativity software products, with a more-recent foray into rich Internet application software development.

All of this is just to say that Adobe and Microsoft never really had reason to cross each other's paths -- that is of course, until Microsoft essentially invaded Adobe territory by creating their own version of a multimedia plug-in.

The rivalry was never too out of control, not even after a minor controversy erupted in February of this year regarding some comments Adobe made about Silverlight. An Adobe executive publicly stated that Silverlight had "fizzled" as a competitor to Adobe's Flash.

In his blog, Tim Sneath, director of the Windows and Silverlight technical evangelism team, accused Adobe Executive Vice President and CFO Mark Garrett of "living in a fantasy world" for believing that Silverlight adoption was waning. "The idea that Silverlight is in anything other than rude health is more to do with what Adobe would like to be the case, rather than what actually is the case," he wrote in the blog posting. "The suggestion that 'Silverlight adoption has fizzled out in the last 6-9 months' is pretty risible, in fact. For starters, Silverlight 2 shipped four months ago, and in just the first month of its availability, we saw over 100 million successful installations just on consumer machines. That doesn't sound like 'fizzling out' to me."

For a few months it was quiet and it seemed to be smooth sailing between the two camps -- until spring erupted in April and baseball season rolled in.

MLB's Video Player Strikes out on Opening Day

The first week of April marked the beginning of baseball season andMajor League Baseball Advanced Media, the digital arm of MLB, decided to drop Microsoft's Silverlight for online video streaming after only one year of use and instead, return to Adobe for the start of the 2009 season. Originally, MLBAM gave Silverlight a major boost when it switched from Adobe in 2007 as part of the media player's launch, but MLBAM's Bob Bowman says the Adobe Flash Platform better matches their needs.

In a recent interview after the announcement to drop Silverlight, Bowman purposely refrained from making any specific or disparaging comments about Silverlight, giving only the cryptic response "Our experience with Silverlight has led us to where we are." Rather than focus on the dropping of Silverlight, Bowman described why a two-year deal with Adobe makes sense for MLBAM. "We did it because we serve up more live video than anybody and we need something flexible and reliable. You need to be able to turn it on and have it work. It needs to be scalable to support hundreds of thousands of simultaneous viewers and it needs to provide more than just video," Bowman said.

Though the specific problems that may -- or may not -- have occurred while using Silverlight remain unsaid, Bowman has contended publicly that the MLBAM is gaining absolutely no financial advantage with their decision to switch back to Adobe. This essentially means that no matter how much cheaper Silverlight may be to utilize, it's not worth the trouble.

Though the MLBAM is remaining quiet concerning the specifics of the switchover, sources close to the negotiations between the league and Microsoft have informed the media that it was a series of glitches and conflicts between the companies that led to the split. Initially, MLB wanted Microsoft to make it possible for users to download Silverlight without having to possess administrative rights. The problem was that when users are at work, it's often the company that possesses those rights and employees would need authorization to download the player. That frustrated plenty of MLB.com subscribers, according to the sources.

The other major issue was that baseball considered Silverlight too unstable. There were some high-profile glitches, including last year's opening day, which saw many MLB.com subscribers struggling to log in, while others were unable to watch entire games; this malfunction was said to last several days.

Fast-forward to the start of the 2009 season and what should occur? Subscribers of Major League Baseball's streaming-video service are complaining that the new player, now officially powered by Adobe, isn't ready for the big leagues. Sure, Adobe received plenty of favorable reviews from technology blogs, but countless MLB.com subscribers have complained about stuttering and stalling video while watching live streaming video of opening day. According to recent reports, many of the same problems continue. Subscribers of MLB.com's GameDay Audio service also reported that archived games haven't been accessible for days.

The irony of all of this, of course, isn't lost on Microsoft. Many, including MLB.com subscribers, are wondering when Adobe will get the boot. In a post shortly after the problems occurred, Christian Thilmany, a member of Microsoft's developer and platform group, referred to the problems in his blog and said, "Maybe they should have stayed with Silverlight."

The extent to which the glitches affected the live streaming is debatable. Many MLB subscribers say the interruptions were significant. Perhaps as a way to save face, Matt Gould, an MLBAM's spokesman, is reporting that the glitches affected less than 1 percent of the company's 500,000 subscribers. He is also contending that the problems didnot occur as a result of Adobe's player. Adobe has yet to specifically address the controversy, only releasing a simple statement: "We've been in regular contact with MLB.com, and have heard nothing but praise about the Flash platform."

Which is Better: Silverlight or Adobe?

When Microsoft released Silverlight 2.0 in October of 2008, MacWorldpublished anarticleproclaiming the fact that Silverlight's performance trumped that of Adobe. Subsequent comments by MacWorld readers regarding the article revealed that the Apple community did not concur with the findings. Since then, Silverlight 3.0 has come on the scene and Adobe has made some adjustments of their own, so the question still remains: which performs better? The answer? It depends.

Simply put, it depends on a single question: what type of solution are you after, one that emphasizesexperienceor a solution that emphasizesfunction? The relationship between experience and function is obviously interconnected; if a user has a poor experience with one, it will most likely lead to poor function and vice versa. That being said, in order to understand why the distinction between experience and function is important, users must look beyond the direct comparison between Silverlight and Flash and instead, focus on five important issues pertaining to the multimedia plug-ins:

1. Microsoft vs. Adobe

2. Microsoft platform vs. Adobe platform

3. Microsoft community vs. Adobe community

4. Microsoft tools (Expression Suite) vs. Adobe tools (Photoshop, Illustrator, CS4)

5. Microsoft Silverlight vs. Adobe Flash

Using these criteria as a form of judgment, it becomes very clear that Microsoft obviously has the edge in terms of function. The IT giant has -- and has always had -- a very deep base for building functional solutions, which goes way beyond what's currently available in Silverlight 3.0. Everything around Microsoft, including its history, platform, tools, and community is built specifically around function.

On the flip side of the coin, everything around Adobe is built around experience. As a user trying to determine whether Microsoft or Adobe is more ideal for your specific needs, it's also incredibly important to consider the role of the community. Silverlight isn't necessarily better at functional solutions, but the very successful company has a huge base of experience in building functional apps. If you need proof, just consider the 600,000 or so partners Microsoft has around the world. Adobe, not to be overshadowed, also has an endless array of experience-based solutions.

It's important to point out that as time goes by and as new technologies continue to evolve, both Microsoft and Adobe continue to evolve with the times. Microsoft is edging closer towards experience and their Silverlight program and Expression suite are evidence of this. Adobe is also edging closer to function, as the company's AIR and Flex programs are proof of their advancement.

It's not a matter of being able to definitively say that one is better than the other. It's up to each individual user to determine which meets their needs best and which provides them with a better online experience. One thing is certain, however: as long as these two companies are in existence, the look of the web and the experience of going online will always be interestingandinteractive.