Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Major League Baseball Dumps Silverlight For Flash

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the silverlight-in-the-pan dept.

Microsoft 388

christian.einfeldt writes "This week, Major League Baseball will open without Microsoft's Silverlight at the plate, according to Bob Bowman, CEO of Major League Baseball Advanced Media, which handles much of the back-end operations for MLB and several other leagues and sporting events. The change was decided on last year but was set to be rolled out this spring. Among the causes of MLB's disillusionment with Silverlight were technical glitches users experienced, including needing administrator privileges to install the plugin (often impossible in workplaces). Baseball's opening day last year was plagued by Silverlight instability, with many users unable to log on and others unable to watch games. Adobe Flash already exists on 99% of user machines, said Bowman, and Adobe is 'committed to the customer experience in video with the Flash Player.' MLBAM's decision to dump Silverlight is particularly problematic for Microsoft's effort to compete with Adobe, due to the fact that MLBAM handles much of the back-end operations for CBS' Webcasts of the NCAA Basketball Tournament and this year will do the encoding for the 2009 Masters golf tournament."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why make the leap in the first place? (5, Insightful)

XorNand (517466) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497577)

I wish the article would have explained why MLB went with Silverlight in the first place. What kind of arm-twisting (or hooker-and-blow-providing) could MS have possibly done to convince a company to take such a major financial gamble? For the most part, Silverlight is largely unproven tech and--to add insult to injury--proprietary. Can someone explain the appeal?

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497617)

I can guess why.
1. Microsoft probably offered a bunch of technical help.
2. Silverlight has a much better programing model the Flash. I have not looked at Flex yet but Flash is nasty.
3. Probably thought that they would get better performance out of it.

Flash is in this case is the Devil that we know. Silverlight is the Devil we don't so Flash will probably win this fight.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (5, Insightful)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497855)

Silverlight has a much better programing model the Flash. I have not looked at Flex yet but Flash is nasty.

Sure, the Flash IDE is a toy, the timeline is only useful for simple animation, and Actionscript 1 and 2 are crap, but Flash isn't bad at all if you're working on a pure code-based Actionscript 3 project.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497883)

Silverlight has a much better programing model the Flash.

Do you honestly think that had anything to do with management's decision? If there is a technologically viable reason for a tech that management adopts, it's purely coincidental.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (5, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498191)

Flash is in this case is the Devil that we know. Silverlight is the Devil we don't so Flash will probably win this fight.

Not true anymore. Apparently, Silverlight is now the Devil that MLBAM has gotten to know, and they decided they hated him so much that they went back to the other devil they already know, Flash.

A high-profile reverse-course like this has got to be really bad news for MS. You'd think that, in trying to unseat Flash, they would have spent a little more effort making sure everything worked just right so that people wouldn't try it out and hate it, and go right back to what they were using before. Pissing off your early (and high-profile) adopters is NOT a good way to run a business and build marketshare.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (5, Informative)

Romancer (19668) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497637)

Depends on who it needed to appeal to.

If it's management, it only needs to work in the demo and be new and shiny.

If it's the IT dept it only needs to be stable and easily managed. Oh, and do the job.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (4, Informative)

tpgp (48001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497709)

-to add insult to injury--proprietary.

Flash is no less proprietary.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (3, Informative)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497823)

Oh really?!? Please post a link to the Sliverlight video file format specification. Here is the one for Flash:

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flv/ [adobe.com]

Go ahead, surprise me ...

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497911)

Silverlight FAQ [microsoft.com]

Silverlight supports what users ask it to support.

Oh, and a link to one of the formats it supports

WMV file format [digitalpreservation.gov]

pwnd

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (1)

McBeer (714119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498081)

Here's another one: Silverlight supports the h.264 [iso.org] standard for video.

Heck there's an OSS version of silverlight [mono-project.com]

Face it, something Microsoft has created is more "open" then its competition.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27498249)

Sorry you should look a bit harder, moonlight or whatever the fuck they call it now is useless marketing crap. Or at least it was last year when baseball opened up, using this 'ready tech'. So whatever if its better now too fucking bad you missed the boat jerkwads.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (3, Interesting)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498103)

>> Flash is no less proprietary.

Technically true, but still less of an issue than Silverlight. Silverlight is proprietary and owned by the company with a near monopoly on consumer operating systems. Adobe is proprietary but they have no reason to prefer one platform over another (aside from marketshare of course), and so are very unlikely to sabotage other platforms at any point in the future.

On the other hand, it might be very beneficial for Microsoft to sabotage other platforms (and they already are, just by not even offering an _official_ linux player).

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497771)

The only thing I can think is that perhaps they were planning a redesign anyway and some pointy-head got their devs thinking about this "new Silverlight thing" he read about in the latest Ass-Hatting Executives, Monthly.

Now, let's look at the request headers, shall we?

Server: Sun-ONE-Web-Server/6.1

Hmm. Looks like somebody higher-up caught wind of the price tag for running a Microsoft shop and decided on another approach. Can't say I blame him. Java p0wns enterprise webapp-land.

And for all the hatred that Adobe gets around here, Flash is undeniably ubiquitous. Everyone has Flash. Christ, my cell phone has Flash. It's easy as shit to develop for (particularly if you're adept in JavaScript), runs everywhere, and it's fast as hell.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498183)

Now if we can just get everyone to stop using Flash. MY cell phone doesn't have flash and I don't want that crap. Most of the crashes I have with all of my browsers are flash related. Flash is crap, silverlight is crap, there is a better way.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (0)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497827)

Maybe because Adobe refused to port Flash 8, 9, or 10 to any platform other than Windows and Mac OS? My Wii only runs Flash 7, my phone can't handle Flash, and I expect the browser in my DSi won't handle Flash either. What was needed was an open platform that would provide the functionality of Flash but be ported to every browser out there. I was hoping Silverlight would be that platform, but I guess it is not yet ready for prime time. And if "Flash is already on 99% of computers out there", then why did I just have to upgrade both my Mac and PC to Flash 10? (Disney's Pixie Hollow requires Flash 10, and I have an eight-year old daughter.)

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497929)

SVG OMG!

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498077)

.... only Windows and OSX?
What about Linux? Adobe ported the 64 bit version of Flash 10 to Linux first, and their Flash support is quite a bit better than "Moonlight"
Although, to their credit, the Moonlight team seems to be making more progress than gnash.

But, I hear you. Shame IE8 had no interest in or - much less or even SVG.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498099)

Frig. I thought /. was clever enough to escape tags in "plain old text" mode. Didn't notice this "extrans" option. Shows how much I use it. *previews*

That should have read:
But, I hear you. Shame IE8 had no interest in <video> or <audio> - much less <canvas> or even SVG.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (1)

ameyer17 (935373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498123)

Linux?

Actionscript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497859)

Maybe it's because C# is far superior to ActionScript?

Re:Actionscript (1)

acidrainx (806006) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498215)

In what way?

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (4, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497863)

I wish the article would have explained why MLB went with Silverlight in the first place

There was a mixup and they thought they were going with the Fleshlight.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (2, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497867)

Yeah, that's a good question. I suspect that MS offered a lot to get them to use it. MLB.TV was the only reason I installed silverlight. I suspect I am not alone. If MLB offered a choice between the two I'd never have installed it. I've yet to come across another site where it's necessary. Now I can safely uninstall it, and most likely never need it again. I had endless problems with it -- especially on my Mac. Silverlight simply did not work well.

The new flash player for MLB.TV this year is a vast improvement on their previous efforts. There's still a few bugs in it, but for the most part it's better.

That said, Flash needs a competitor. It seriously needs one. It's astonishing that it's had so much market share for so long.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27498121)

Now I can safely uninstall it. That said, Flash needs a competitor. It seriously needs one.

Flash has a competitor. You're removing it to save 2mb of hard disk space. Idiot.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497919)

I doubt it took much, the MLB is really poorly run. I have first hand experience in developing product or them, and they don't seem to give two shits about quality or user experience. Fans seem to just be consumers in their eyes...

Some marginal short term gain was probably enough to convince them.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497923)

An all-expenses-paid trip to Hawaii for the product demonstration?

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (2, Informative)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497955)

I wish the article would have explained why MLB went with Silverlight in the first place. What kind of arm-twisting (or hooker-and-blow-providing) could MS have possibly done to convince a company to take such a major financial gamble? For the most part, Silverlight is largely unproven tech and--to add insult to injury--proprietary. Can someone explain the appeal?

Also, most people don't have or use or even WANT to use Silverlight.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (1)

SenFo (761716) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498057)

This "proprietary" argument is getting old.

Silverlight is an open-standard. While Microsoft doesn't actively develop a Linux client, they have collaborated with Novel to bring the Moonlight project [mono-project.com] to the Linux and other Unix/X11 platforms.

Granted, the Moonlight 2.0 implementation is behind Microsoft's implementation, with the Moonlight Roadmap [mono-project.com] indicating a planed release date of September 2009. While this is frustrating to end users and developers, I don't think it's fair to call Silverlight "proprietary".

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27498087)

I interviewed with them a few years ago.

MLB.com had all their video in WMV and a pre-exisitng Windows Media Server infrastructure, because they were very concerned about rights management.

Because they were a big Flash shop, they had to do a lot of mixing and matching Flash and JS to work with Windows Media player.

When Silverlight came out, it looked like it would be an all-in-one deal that would let them retain their existing video infrastructure and clips, and be able to better utilize them inside the RIA's they build.

They gave it a shot because it cost them almost nothing, MLB.com is rolling in dough and gets free stuff all the time because they're high profile.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27498201)

I have a feeling that they probably went to Flex not Flash which none the less produces content that is played in FlashPlayer. Flash is now on ActionScript 3 and Flex IS open-source and you can get a free mxml compiler and so far from Flash in terms of RIA creation that it is hardly fair to consider it Flash. I know the article says they went to Flash, but trust me if they are smart, they are using Flash for animation and Flex for creating internet experiences. Flex is an open standard with a strong company behind it. Adobe acquiring Macromedia put the Flash technology in the right hands, and frankly Microsoft got in the game too late and their negative brand recognition hardly makes them an underdog likely to pull ahead of this particular race. However, it makes sense that the Microsoft empire would have the resources and connections to make a deal with this big a player in the first place. They probably had existing connections and they just got in first. Its good to know though that at the end of the day quality and stable user experience are what are driving the decisions and not merely hopping on the latest technology bandwagon.

Re:Why make the leap in the first place? (1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498253)

Flash is as proprietary as SilverLight.

Dont get me wrong. I hate Flash and for one am glad my iPhone is not plagued by flash content.

But besides SL being unproven, is no more mediocre or evil than Flash.

That's like saying (3, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497579)

"Major League Baseball Dumps Pact with Demons for Pact with the Devil."

Better the Devil You Know (4, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497737)

... as they say.

As industry devils go, Flash has fairly low levels of evil. It's proven, it fills a niche, it works, and while it's not wide open, it's not exactly locked shut either.

Re:That's like saying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497743)

Flash is a lot more open than silverlight, it's pretty much the de-facto standard for crappy ads and games on the web, and anyone is able to code for it for free, using open source tools (http://osflash.org/open_source_flash_projects) and without any strings attached (which a microsoft product is guaranteed to have).

Re:That's like saying (4, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497757)

Um, sure, they are both proprietary, but Flash is much less so. For example, Flash has a 100% supported plugin for Linux and Mac whereas Silverlight doesn't (well, might have an official Mac port, but not Linux), both are 100% compatible with the Windows version, plus Flash has support on some things that Silverlight support will be impossible such as on the Nintendo Wii's Opera browser, and Flash lite for mobile devices. Flash also has a work in progress OSS implementation called Gnash.

Re:That's like saying (1, Informative)

McBeer (714119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498213)

Flash has a 100% supported plugin for Linux and Mac whereas Silverlight doesn't

Wrong.
Mac version: http://silverlight.net/GetStarted/ [silverlight.net]
Linux version: http://mono-project.com/Moonlight [mono-project.com]

Flash has support on some things that Silverlight support will be impossible such as on the Nintendo Wii's Opera browser

Wrong. The Wii only supports Flash 7. Almost all flash apps check for version 9 or 10 right off the bat so Flash is useless on the Wii.

[Silverlight can't compete with] Flash lite for mobile devices.

Wrong. Silverlight mobile is coming along quite nicely. [silverlight.net]

Please research things instead of just making a bunch of stuff up and somehow getting +5 informative for it.

Re:That's like saying (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497769)

At least the devil is on top.

I'd prefer to be one of the devil's demons, rather than a demon's bitch!

Re:That's like saying (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498019)

You mean like this?

Damn, where is the picture of Beastie sodomizing Tux?

Re:That's like saying (1)

Repton (60818) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498041)

At least devils are lawful...

Yer out! (-1, Flamebait)

nysus (162232) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497583)

I'm a proud Microsoft basher. This is good news.

Re:Yer out! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497675)

Fuck you, you ignorant sheep. Bash your fucking testes!

This is the MLB. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497589)

We switched from something that sucks to something that will make your computer bow down before Zod. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Zod

work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497609)

including needing administrator privileges to install the plugin (often impossible in workplaces).

why are people trying to watch MLB on their work computers in the first place?

Re:work (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497741)

Me? Because my work blocks porn.

Re:work (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497829)

> including needing administrator privileges to install the plugin

The same happened with to me with an intranet needing flash with machines without internet access. Was a PITA to search for a version of the plugin that doesn't try to auto-update from the web and completely hanging Internet Explorer in its way.

It's a bit ironic, but this is similar to the "can't dump Windows 'cause geek hi-knowledge is needed to install Linux". In both cases the established technology has a silly yet strong advantage.

Re:work (5, Insightful)

WindowlessView (703773) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497837)

why are people trying to watch MLB on their work computers in the first place?

Have you ever watched or listened to a baseball game? It's been the chosen background noise of America since the 1930s. It's not like a lot happens that is going to disrupt your work.

Re:work (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497965)

because I live within 300 miles of the stadium and as such i am in the blackout zone. They figure they can black out all of NY state in both audio and video if your within 300 miles you should go to the game.

I like to stream the audio. Narrow bandwidth even though we have high speed. The audio quality is as good as the radio, and if it is teams that everyone wants to listen to, we use one of the short range FM transmitters to the shop radios.

Radio and tv blackout zones are a true evil. especially in an age when the teams in question make billions.

MSFT Icon is stale. (-1, Redundant)

hhr (909621) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497627)

This is off topic, but Slashdot's MSFT icon is stale.

The best of both worlds aired 17 years ago. The Borg haven't been on the air in years.

And Bill G is no longer at Microsoft.

Re:MSFT Icon is stale. (1, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497691)

Mod parent up. While you're at it, have a look at my concept for a new icon [osceola.org] that epitomizes the maturity of the Windows family of operating systems.

Yow! (2, Funny)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497731)

That image is almost NSFW!

Re:Yow! (1)

eh2o (471262) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497785)

Quick, quaff a unicorn chaser!

Re:MSFT Icon is stale. (5, Funny)

kv9 (697238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497721)

This is off topic, but Slashdot's MSFT icon is stale.

I agree. I think the new icon should be a flying chair.

Re:MSFT Icon is stale. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497873)

Or a chimp?

Re:MSFT Icon is stale. (2, Interesting)

castorvx (1424163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497983)

Since you're being off-topic, I'll make the situation worse and ask a question that has been plaguing me for a while now.

Is referring to companies by their stock symbol some new trend, or do people who frequently do that actually trade stocks a significant amount and have a reason to feel more comfortable with "MSFT" than "Microsoft"?

Is it just shorter?

Re:MSFT Icon is stale. (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498033)

We need punctuation in NASDAQ symbols just so we can call them M$ for real.

Re:MSFT Icon is stale. (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498155)

It's an unambiguous acronym that is commonly mentioned in news articles in the form of "Microsoft (MSFT) announced today...". When you read it often enough, it can stick, though companies with short names like Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) don't get abbreviated.

Even shorter acronyms are of course possible (e.g. MS), but the mere fact they exist doesn't mean people will always use them (think US vs USA... both in common use, neither is really better than the other).

Re:MSFT Icon is stale. (1)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498109)

Most (all?) of Slashdot's icons are stale. That's part of its charm.

Re:MSFT Icon is stale. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498195)

And Bill G is no longer at Microsoft.

Funny, no one seems to have told Microsoft [microsoft.com] , who still seem to think that William H. Gates III is their Chairman.

Don't worry! (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497643)

Have no fear, the Microsoft fanboys will soon tell us the many, many reasons why this is actually a good thing and how, Real Soon Now, Microsoft will fix it and add dozens of fabulous new features that make Adobe software a thing of the past. The Mono fanboys will do much the same, although nobody will understand why.

Re:Don't worry! (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497861)

As someone who is currently writing a medium scale .NET application and intending on releasing it as GPL, I'd really rather compile against Mono but they aren't 3.5 compatible.

In addition to that, it seemed to me the integration with Visual Studio IDE wasn't that good. Hate to say it, but the Visual Studio IDE is pretty much bomb compared to a lot of the open source stuff I've used in the past, including Eclipse.

Sliverlight was an idiotic decision anyway (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497665)

Nearly all front end developers know javascript, and are therefore quite capable of flash programming. Silverlight has low market penetration and nobody wants to use it because it's widely seen as the latest in a long series of failed attempts to Microsoftize the web.

Re:Sliverlight was an idiotic decision anyway (1)

Omniscientist (806841) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497877)

Agreed.

I tend to view Silverlight as the black sheep of the family of WPF UI-programming technologies; an approach that is useful for desktop application development, but an utterly inappropriate choice for web content.

Flex on Rails! (but not on Steroids) (1)

Bushido Hacks (788211) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497677)

I'd like to see what the website would look like using Adobe Flex and Ruby on Rails.

Re:Flex on Rails! (but not on Steroids) (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498053)

First read as "I'd like to see what the Rapture would look like using Adobe Flex and Ruby on Rails."

If you've been bad, you get to use Silverlight, XPS and HD Photo for everything for all eternity!

if it aint broke (1)

Vorpix (60341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497699)

i used mlb.tv last year and subscribed again this year (go phils!). they've made a lot of improvements to the flash player this year, with a slider (almost like a volume control) to increase picture quality/bandwidth usage, and new abilities to jump to specific innings of prerecorded games.

these features look and work great. plus flash has way more penetration on the desktop than silverlight. i really don't see many compelling reasons (unless microsoft is throwing a lot of money their way) to rush into silverlight.

Re:if it aint broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497869)

Yes, but I don't LIKE being penetrated by Flash!
If Flash and Silverlight have an epic boss in-fight, we can at least damage Flash a little and try to crack their monopoly and stick a more open and free penis metaphor in there.

Flash is only installed on 97% of machines (1)

caffeinejolt (584827) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497707)

Re:Flash is only installed on 97% of machines (1)

mrblondetm (1505367) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497763)

This was covered in a previous Slashdot article [slashdot.org] . Of course Adobe is going to round up in this case and I am sure MLB is only quoting Adobe.

Flash UI sucks rotten eggs. (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497739)

Until they have a "Do not ask me again" checkbox directly on the "This site wants to store data" dialog I will continue to leave flash disabled.

I don't want every site able to store data, but some sites will not play anything that way, because they store data files locally instead of using the browser cache. I can steal youtube videos directly out of the cache, but I can't get crap out of these sties that store things using flash storage unless I allow sites to store.

Well, I have no way of knowing which sites are just broken in Firefox, or require Flash storage, so I leave the "ask me" button on.

Colbert Report and Daily Show will not play unless I allow storing locally - it took me 6 months of near-apathy to figure that one out. So I allowed sites to ask me. Adjusting the volume on youtube will get you 10 "This site is storing data, allow?" queries. If I just said no, what are the chances I'll change my mind? Ask me once, that's it.

To set the 'Don't ask me again" you have to go in to the Flash options, and it's fairly simple that way. Yes, I get it. But the default behavior is to ask you repeatedly to store up to 10k of data, with no way of saying "quit asking". This is not good design.

There are other problems, but I've spent this much describing this problem, do you really want to hear more? Probably not. They don't seem to think it's a valid bug report, so instead I'll just disparage them publicly.

Tag: goodriddance (1, Redundant)

PingXao (153057) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497765)

That's part of it. The other part is how I guess I'm in the 1% who does not have Flashy installed. On my machines I've said "good riddance" to that, too. Except for one, but on that one I use FlashBlock and I probably actually click through maybe 1 out of 500 flashy thingies to let them play.

Re:Tag: goodriddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497893)

flash works well for internet video. welcome to 2009.

has anyone seen high quality flv? (2, Interesting)

dingDaShan (818817) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497773)

MLB could benefit from the high resolution available. Has anyone watched the March Madness on Demand from Cbs.sportsline.com? The quality was amazing... much better than any flash video that I have watched. It seems that Flash is way behind in terms of video. Youtube is NOT good quality. Cbs.sportsline.com's video scaled down or up based on the available bandwidth and was an excellent viewing experience. Of course, I am not factoring in the business aspects, but the quality of silverlight's video can be high. further reading http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/61563 [sportsbusi...ournal.com]

Re:has anyone seen high quality flv? (1)

tpgp (48001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497901)

has anyone seen high quality flv?

Try here [adobe.com] . Up to 1080p.

Youtube is NOT good quality.

Depends on the quality of the original video - youtube allows up to 720p - look for a 'HD' button in the bottom right corner of the vid.

Re:has anyone seen high quality flv? (1)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498009)

Flash Player may support HD video, but it can't play it back in full screen mode (1680x1050) in realtime without dropping frames, even on a Core 2 Duo.
Take the same .MP4 file, and play it in something like VLC or FFDShow, and it plays beautifully.
Flash fails as a video player.

Re:has anyone seen high quality flv? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497947)

I agree the video on March Madness on Demand was very, very good. Much better than any Flash video that I have seen. I was very impressed.

Yes, but there are downsides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27498105)

Slow downloads, jittery playback compared to Windows Media Player, switching between in-browser and full screen takes long and makes you watch pieces twice, full screen fps is jarringly low, and even with all this, the video quality still isn't quite as good as the Xvid video I just torrented.

Microsoft releases Silverlight 2.0, nobody cares (4, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497793)

Microsoft today announced the release of version 2.0 of its world-beating Silverlight multimedia platform for the Web. As a replacement for Adobe's Flash, it is widely considered utterly superfluous [today.com] and of no interest to anyone who could be found.

"We have a fabulous selection of content partners for Silverlight," announced Microsoft marketer Scott Guthrie on his blog today. "NBC for the Olympics, which delivered millions of new users to BitTorrent. The Democrat National Committee, which is fine because those Linux users are all Ron Paul weirdos anyway. It comes with rich frameworks, rich controls, rich networking support, a rich base class library, rich media support, oh God kill me now. My options are underwater, my resume's a car crash, Google won't call me back. My life is an exercise in futility. I'm the walking dead, man. The walking dead."

Silverlight was created by Microsoft to leverage its desktop monopoly on Windows, to work off the tremendous sales and popularity of Vista. Flash is present on a pathetic 96% of all computers connected to the Internet, whereas Silverlight downloads are into the triple figures.

"But it's got DRM!" cried Guthrie. "Netflix loved it! And web developers love us too, after all we did for them with IE 6. Wait, come back! We'll put porn on it! Free porn!"

Similar Microsoft initiatives include its XPS replacement for Adobe PDF, its HD Photo replacement for JPEG photographs and its earlier Liquid Motion attempt to replace Flash. Also, that CD-ROM format Vista defaults to which no other computers can read.

In a Microsoft internal security sweep, Guthrie's own desktop was found to still be running Windows XP.

Re:Microsoft releases Silverlight 2.0, nobody care (1)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497831)

"Wait, come back! We'll put porn on it! Free porn!"

Well I'm sold.

Re:Microsoft releases Silverlight 2.0, nobody care (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497953)

I'm honestly surprised they haven't quietly sponsored a porn site to offer free porn but only if you install Silverlight. It's the only way they'll get an installation base.

Re:Microsoft releases Silverlight 2.0, nobody care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27498145)

They did. Playboy released its old editions on the web, but only if you use silverlight. But I really need they need something more hardcore. ;-)

Re:Microsoft releases Silverlight 2.0, nobody care (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497865)

Yeah - looking at the stat owl site mentioned above, silverlight is nowhere near flash in overall usage [statowl.com] . Not sure why they insist on trying to get into this market other then that it is Microsoft!

Re:Microsoft releases Silverlight 2.0, nobody care (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497967)

I'd like to see them answer the question a commenter asked of where that graph comes from.

Ballmer should have bought Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497807)

... long time ago.

HTML 5? (5, Interesting)

RonGHolmes (574268) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497815)

I'm still surprised companies aren't jumping on the HTML 5 bandwagon. Eschew flash and plug-ins for native web browser applications and video. http://280slides.com/ [280slides.com] is a great example of what can be done. The ObjectiveJ they're developing is truly amazing - and it's all browser native. Even IE 8 works. I hate to say it, but Apple are right for once - get rid of flash and other plug-in based user interfaces and get back to basics. Share your JavaScript frameworks, use local storage and more - embrace HTML 5.

Re:HTML 5? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497907)

I'd love that, but at this point a significant portion of the public is using a browser that doesn't support those technologies. As a FreeBSD user I'd be more than happy to be rid of flash altogether.

But on the other hand, the fact that I didn't have flash set up at all spared me from all the annoying browser crashes and freeze ups that inevitably follow.

Re:HTML 5? (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497915)

If you take a look at the demo theres the lovely statement save your presentation as Powerpoint 2007 an ISO Standard.
sounds really open

Re:HTML 5? (1)

RonGHolmes (574268) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498007)

I'd prefer it if Keynote was an ISO standard - although in some ways it is - the data is stored in XML. Keynote is sooo much nicer to present with. I wish there was a Windows version.

Re:HTML 5? (2, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498221)

Yes, you can save in PowerPoint 2007's format. Or in the old-style PowerPoint format. Or in ODF format. Or as a PDF.

What exactly are you complaining about?

Re:HTML 5? (3, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497917)

The whole point of using flash for video is to 1) prevent viewers from skipping over ads, and 2) prevent viewers from saving the streaming video to disk. If you allow native web browser applications, then what is to prevent users from substituting their own native application which violates points 1 and 2?

Re:HTML 5? (2, Informative)

RonGHolmes (574268) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498001)

I suppose, but then people can get the streams anyway. Flash just encapsulates the video stream. It's easy enough to get it. Javascript can obfuscate the source of data too if you have the right frameworks. Javascript really can do everything flash can, including loading compiled bytecode.

The Silverlight player was hideous (1, Insightful)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497817)

I cancelled my subscription last year because the player interaction/interface/experience/whatever was just dreadful. Heading over there now to sign up for this year, go Yankees!

Re:The Silverlight player was hideous (1, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497905)

go Yankees!

Mod parent insightful!

Re:The Silverlight player was hideous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27497973)

Mod both of you losers, just like the Yankees last night!

Dumb Exec's (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27497895)

This is a typical case of top down management with flashy MBA's looking at BS numbers from large entities with conflicting interests (sound familiar, if not then look-up Arthur Anderson or Enron, conflict of interest, on Google). I can bet some IT company that is a Microsoft partner fed the MLB board some lame numbers showing that Microsoft is on everyones desktop thus Silverlight will be a no brainer. The fact the Microsoft technology is immature and the competition (Adobe flash) is extremely mature with lots of supporting web applications/mind-share is totally ignored or forgotten.

This is a good thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27498045)

As a Desktop Linux user, I fear the adoption of Silverlight. The reason is, while the framework for Silverlight is FOSS, the Codecs aren't. Microsoft could wait until Silverlight got popular, and then yank the chair out from under us by breaking Codec compatibility/licensing.

MLB not particularly professional (0, Flamebait)

notaprguy (906128) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498069)

It's pretty low class of MLB to slam Silverlight. Flash and Silverlight both have strengths. Flash's biggest strengths are ubiquity and a fairly large number of "developers" who know how to use it. Flash's weaknesses is that it's a hariball with no real programming model. Silverlight's strengths is that it's a real platform - an extension of .NET - with good and improving tooling support and huge numbers of potential developers who know .NET. Silverlight's weaknesses are tjat it is not yet on as many machines as Flash (but it will eventually...Microsoft won't give up) and that it's just more immature. For MLB to throw around innuendo about the performance or reliability of Silverlight is low class and obviously not credible given how well Silverlight worked for the Olympics, NCAA's and in many other places. If I were Adobe I'd be worried. Flash will lead for a while longer but Silverlight is fundamentally better as a platform and Microsoft won't give up.

The new MLB experience is worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27498149)

MLB subscribers are outraged with the new experience [mlbsupport.com] . The NextDef plug-in used in combination with Flash is causing issues for several users.

New MLB experience is worse (0, Redundant)

computerDub (911672) | more than 5 years ago | (#27498209)

MLB subscribers are outraged with the new experience [mlbsupport.com] . The NextDef plug-in used in combination with Flash is causing show-stopping issues.

And it's working out so well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27498229)

"I am not the type to just lower the boom on MLB.TV, but when the discussion boards are FULL of reported problems and evidence that almost NOTHING is working, it is difficult to read your blog entry without any sort of real apology without being very frustrated and angry," wrote one subscriber this morning, in a post that captures the general frustration and anger of hundreds of other commenters. "Is anyone reading these comments? Is the existence of the forum and this blog just a ploy to keep us quiet and let us vent into empty space? We need to have the feeling we are actually being heard. I know two things I am not hearing or seeing: an apology and the games."

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=mobile_and_wireless&articleId=9131227&taxonomyId=15&intsrc=kc_top [computerworld.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?