Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Microsoft Moves in on the Graphics Market

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the good-visuals-lucrative-software dept.

237

Ian Lamont writes "Microsoft has quietly been building up graphics-related R&D, reports Computerworld, noting that Microsoft employees will be presenting one out of every eight papers at SIGGRAPH 2007. And it's not a fluke — other recent Microsoft graphics-related developments include Photosynth, which has been discussed on Slashdot several times, as well as the Silverlight/Expression Studio graphics suite, which will compete with Adobe's Flash/Illustrator/Lightroom/Dreamweaver offerings. At SIGGRAPH, Microsoft will supposedly have demos of some new software including image deblurring tools and Soft Scissors, which 'solves the vexing problem of how to cut and paste an image from one background to another if the image's edges — hair blowing in the wind, blades of grass — are very complex.' Microsoft's competitors aren't sitting down. Adobe's CEO, calling Microsoft a '$50 billion monopolist,' has questioned whether Silverlight will be compatible with non-Windows operating systems, and Google has also been building up its own graphics-related software products, such as the 3D modeling tool SketchUp, and Google Earth."

cancel ×

237 comments

Microsoft might be a monopolist... (4, Insightful)

HaloMan (314646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173209)

but I can't feel any sympathy for Adobe, who is increasingly monopolising the design arena with their obscenely priced tools. Competition is good, no matter what your opinion on Microsoft is - someone needs to take on rapidly enlarging 500lb gorilla that is Adobe, particularly since they took over Macromedia.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1, Flamebait)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173249)

Sorry but I don't buy it, This will be a competition for Adobe the way Frontpage is competition for Dreamweaver....people just know better and if you don't well I pity the company that you work for.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173311)

And if it sucks, so what? Nobody is forcing anyone to buy it. Frontpage was shit, which is why it was discontinued.

And, FWIW, Dreamweaver isn't good either, it's just the best of a bad bunch.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (0, Redundant)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173403)

Well said my good sir, well said.

500 lb gorilla or... (2, Insightful)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175023)

15,000 lb elephant? The gorilla may be more adept with it's tools, but the elephant has a lot of weight to swing around and can hurt a lot more(in magnitude and multitude) in the long run.

If the previous mainstream outside-the-OS/Office ventures of MS are any indication (see Xbox, Zune, et al) though, it's competitor(Adobe here) is going to put up a serious fight, and the consumer will enjoy the effects of the competition, just like if we got to watch an actual 500 lb gorilla and an actual 15,000 lb elephant fight...

Hmmm...time to go search the YouTube...

Re:500 lb gorilla or... (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175263)

Reminds me of a Simpsons episode Homer- "bring in the elephant and monkey to fight for my amusement" Burns"God like worship... even the monkey and elephant had some merit, but treating employee's fairly?" Or something like that

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173341)

If you look at the article earlier today about the auto fill-in in photos. MSs product did a very good job in the side by side comparison. I would be willing to bet that they can do some good stuff with their hair/grass copy paste too.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173447)

Which is the point, Google comes out with some phenomenal products and yes I am a Google fan boy but Google is a long way away from replacing my Office 2007 addiction. Toys are nice and useful, there are some great stitch programs and the auto fill-in is a neat concept, but it just doesn't compete with the CS studio, you can do a couple things well but the CS studio is a complete robust solution for doing professional work not just a toy, which is why Adobe feels they can charge their exorbitant prices and people will pay them.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (3, Insightful)

HaloMan (314646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173507)

Which is why we should welcome Microsoft employing professionals and bringing alternative robust solutions for doing professional work.

I don't see anyone losing if there's two professional-quality graphics applications competing with each other. Except possibly Adobe's share price.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (4, Insightful)

vought (160908) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174801)

I don't see anyone losing if there's two professional-quality graphics applications competing with each other. Except possibly Adobe's share price.

How about professional graphic artists and other who have to exchange files between the two suites all the time? I'm pretty sure they'll lose:

-Money. They'll have to buy both suites.
-Money. They'll have to keep two platforms and three binaries around if they're a Mac shop, and they'll have to have someone manage all of it.
-Productivity. Even if interoperable somehow, converting from one tool/platform to another rarely goes smoothly.
-Time. It'll all take longer.

Adobe does a great job with it's tools. I'd love to see someone develop something from the ground up that does most of what Photoshop or (insert your favoite Adobe tool here) using the same file formats Adobe currently uses.

Microsoft, however, is known for mediocre approaches using mediocre tools. I'm not eager to see what they plan to do using new file formats and new approaches. I'll be the first to admit it i I'm wrong, but all I see happenening is a repeat of the desktop publishing market in the early-to-mid 90s: lots of different software, lots of delays, and lots of clueless newbies who think that because it says "Microsoft", it's automagically an accepted standard.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175347)

Foxit PDF, google it. Quite a nice little util... though to create pdf's you have to buy (or crack it). But that is entirely up to you :)

There are others out there.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (4, Insightful)

pressman (182919) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174989)

Oh come on. Adobe is so deeply entrenched in their market with a bevvy of world class apps, that even Microsoft won't be able to put a dent in it. No one at Microsoft cares about or understands the need of graphic artists and content creators. They just don't care. The only reason they are attempting to get into this space is because they see a potential for profit. They'll find the fastest and cheapest way to get into the market and they'll inundate the market with a load of crap software that will only make Flash, Illustrator and Photoshop look even better by comparison.

Will this stuff run on a Mac? Where the vast majority of creative work is done? Of course not.... except through Boot Camp or Paralells. They're starting off handicapped from the get-go. This whole suite of apps and delivery methods is still born. They are only trying to make some cash and that is not a good motivating factor for making software. Having a good idea that meets the needs of your customers and then building the tool for them and pricing it accordingly to make a profit is the far better approach.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175305)

This is off topic but regarding mac software have you checked out VMWARE Fusion, just came out this week and may makes my need to have multiple versions of software less likely.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

pressman (182919) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175425)

Only seen Boot Camp and Parallels in action. Gotta say Parallels working in coherence mode is pretty stunning. When I actually get an Intel Mac I'm most certainly going to weigh all my options regarding virtualization for Windows. They all seem to be coming along rather nicely.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (2, Informative)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173701)

Photoshop will be an extremely tough hill to climb because there really are no other apps in the ballpark. That leverage is how they got Lightroom into the hands of so many photographers despite that fact it really isn't very good at doing any tasks that weren't copied straight out of Photoshop.

Before Microsoft bought iView it was a much better photo management app than Lightroom. The only thing better about Adobe's product was its UI and integration with Photoshop. I don't know what changes MS has made but if they haven't broken its ability to quickly handle large libraries they might be able to get some traction there.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (2, Interesting)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174171)

PS is not a tough hill to climb at all, unless you're climbing to the very top.

Maybe 5% of users use 90% of the features in PS. It's serious overkill for most graphical needs except high end skilled professional work. And it's ludicrously expensive for anyone elses needs.

I do lots of graphical work in my job, lots of minor editing and image creation, gui element creation, that kind of thing. Know what? Paint.net has all of the tools from PS that I'd ever need for my requirements, and it's free. (As well as just one of a number of very suitable graphics programs that are free and suitable to most peoples needs)

Adobe could quite easily be killed off, and just might be yet if they continue to expect their entire potential market on the same level as they currently do. Adobe _should_ have been providing a free version of PS with less features to the masses for YEARS now...then they WOULD be the graphics gorilla that would be almost unstoppable. As it stands, sure most use Adobe products, but how many are thrilled to do so? Everyone I know spends a LOT of time talking about other products, just waiting to jump ship ASAP (For those that haven't yet that is!)

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (2, Insightful)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174507)

I'm a professional photographer, which is one of the high end high margin markets Microsoft would like to do more business in, and is the 5% you guess at above. If they want in they'll need to deal with Photoshop in some way. If Paint.net, or GIMP, or any of the other giveaway photo programs do all you need, you are both not the market we're talking about here nor do you understand its needs.

I went to one day of Microsoft's Pro Photo Summit last month and I get the impression they are quite serious about this. More so than in the past.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (3, Insightful)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175007)

Personally I don't believe that the business folks at microsoft really give a toss about the highend 5%. Put some numbers on it. Say for easy math that Adobes market is worth $100 million dollars. 5% is worth a pretty big $5 million, but Microsoft most likely cares about the $95 million. Adobe can probably keep their 5% high end users and MS wouldn't even blink.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174685)

For someone making money using it creative suite is quite a reasonable price ($1800 + $600 every 18 months). It is about the same price as a computer, and close in price on to a good printer.

The people not making money off of it were never the target market.

And I can say that where I work there is a lot of love for Adobe. It is not universal, but their pricing and practices are much preferred over Quark for example. There was a generation of Quark where there was no upgrades for example. Quark is also quite difficult to get an upgrade for, and takes many weeks (from 5 to 6 anyway). Quark offered no discount to Kinkos or to schools. As soon as InDesign became credible competition things changed FAST. In fact schools switched over before it was even credible competition because they could get educational discounts (as could the students).

Also PDF has made our lives a lot better, and Acrobat Distiller is still the best PDF maker (though Scribus looks like it is getting pretty good in the PDF department, and for personal use PDFCreator is good).

In fact the biggest complaints about price where I work is with Apple. For the mid-end machine you have to buy a disposable monitor and the high-end is crazy expensive (fairly priced, but we really don't need 8 cores). And don't forget to upgrade the OS all the time, or you won't be able to browse the web, or buy the software you want.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175339)

Adobe _should_ have been providing a free version of PS with less features to the masses for YEARS now

Why should they do that when the GIMP project does it for them at no cost?

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175021)

Photoshop will be an extremely tough hill to climb because there really are no other apps in the ballpark.

Perhaps true, but it would be nice if somebody did try and MS is the only other large smelly primate in the room. I'm a PS junkie (in fact an CS junkie) but there is certainly room for improvement.

I don't know what changes MS has made [to iView Media Pro, now Microsoft Expressions] but if they haven't broken its ability to quickly handle large libraries they might be able to get some traction there.

Well, from what I've seen so far, Microsoft - the aformentioned 800 pound hairy grunting primate - has managed to 1) Change a bunch of icons 2) Not fix any of the known bugs in Media Pro 3 and 3) piss off most of the professional users. An unimpressive start.

I haven't followed Microsoft's entry into pixel manipulation too closely, but what I've seen tends to be on the flashier side of this (Photosynth) rather than the core image manipulations that describe much of the "professional" level of Photoshop (curves, layers, color spaces, color management, basic filters). More on the non-professional side. I would think that there is a much larger market in this lower end of the image manipulation market - people that wouldn't understand a color space or even an adjustment layer but who want to stick their ex-wife's picture on some random porn picture. Like most avid users of Photoshop, I suspect that most people who have it loaded on their hard drives really don't know how to use it and don't need it's power or complexity. So there is a huge market in this sort of thing, especially if they can get merging of various pixel based images down to software algorithms.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (0, Offtopic)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173505)

oh come on, how is this flamebait? if I had said M$ sucks and is for the ignorant masses that would be flamebait but a simple statement of fact does not constitute flamebait. Frontpage simply does not produce code as well as Dreamweaver and is very lacking in features. It is great for a starter and when notepad is not available but show me stats that have frontpage out preforming Dreamweaver and I will concede.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1, Offtopic)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174069)

You know darned well, just as most around here, that Frontpage and Dreamweaver are not comparable products. When they were, Dreamweaver was crap too.

The comparable product from MS today is VisualStudio 2005. Not such a clear cut victory anymore when it's on fair terms is it?

But you knew that, which is why your post is flamebait.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174295)

No, VS2005 is not a comparable product to DW. You can build websites from it, that's hardly its most used function. Programming is, not being an HTML editor.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174337)

You're right, my bad.

VS 2005 blows Dreamweaver out of the water...not a fair comparison at all ;)

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (1)

daskinil (991205) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174105)

Well its not only flamebate, buts its also offtopic. Frontpage has almost nothing to do with TFA. Its also a very old program, and microsoft probably didn't put any extra work into it cause they new it sucked.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (3, Funny)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173379)

Adobe, who is increasingly monopolising the design arena with their obscenely priced tools.


What? You actually pay for your Adobe program(s)?

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173649)

I wouldn't say they are a monopolist. I'd say they are a late blooming schizophrenic. I see a lot more Zunes in their future.

Colonial Aspirations of Companies (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173891)

When you're the $50 billion gorilla, you get to send expeditions into many difficult markets/areas without feeling the pinch much. Who cares if you disturb the local flora and fauna? They might just accidentally win with their foray. Germs and Guns, anyone?

Of course, what happens if they wipe out the market competition and later leave the market by taking the same sort of lark that brought them there in the first place?

Re:Colonial Aspirations of Companies (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174317)

Of course, what happens if they wipe out the market competition and later leave the market by taking the same sort of lark that brought them there in the first place?
If they succeed in wiping out the competition, they wouldn't leave since they'd be sitting on a cash cow. Innovation wouldn't exactly dry up, either, since they'd have to sell people on buying a latest greatest version so they could have growth: and you can't do that by stagnating.

Pretty strange theory, Dros (2, Informative)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174969)

"Free" Market. I understand. I also actually read Adam Smith, who placed several caveats on his theory that make it an unattainable ideal. Holding primacy among these is the availability of perfect information. (And the unspoken addendum that the volume of perfect information must be evaluable (i.e. instantly having perfect information from the correct context.))

What we have today is, at best, mercantilism. The biggest thing you ignore in your assertion are "barriers to entry", which as any silicon valley executive can tell you are impenetrable when Microsoft is in the market. A startup's best chance for profit in a Microsoft market is for MS to buy them out. This happened lots in the 80's ad 90's, with most of those companies' products and innovations heading straight for the MS dustbin. So, your assertion about others filling the void to keep MS on their toes is wishful thinking. I'm not defending the current occupants of the market: their business models are antiquated and inefficient.

A cash cow by whose standards?
going by market capitalization (a flawed metric, but something.) Adobe who are the market leader in this space are at $23,978.8 Million. Microsoft are at $271,139.2 Million. That's over an order of magnitude in business size. The graphics market at a discount (in order to kill Adobe) from Adobe's pricing is quite small in relative terms. Add to that the trend towards freeish software led by Google and you have a shrinking market in dollars, even if you have a larger user base. It's like the browser wars. It doesn't really matter who wins, because everyone loses economically. Remember Netscape Communications Corp?

By the way, MS never has to sell people on the next version. They just cease support for the version before last and corporate customers adopt the last version. Wash, rinse, repeat. See other discussions regarding their other product lines most notably windows, office, and Visual Studio.

From The Wealth of Nations:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." (Book 1, Chapter 10).

http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/index.php/smith/mor e_about/a_modest_man_named_smith/ [adamsmith.org]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism [wikipedia.org] :

Mercantilist domestic policy was more fragmented than its trade policy. While Adam Smith portrayed mercantilism as supportive of strict controls over the economy, many mercantilists disagreed. The early modern era was one of letters patent and government-imposed monopolies; some mercantilists supported these, but others acknowledged the corruption and inefficiency of such systems. Many mercantilists also realized the inevitable result of quotas and price ceilings were black markets. One notion mercantilists widely agreed upon was the need for economic oppression of the working population; laborers and farmers were to live at the "margins of subsistence". The goal was to maximize production, with no concern for consumption. Extra money, free time, or education for the "lower classes" was seen to inevitably lead to vice and laziness, and would result in harm to the economy.[7]

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173907)

I'd be with you if I thought it were real competition.

What we have here is a monopoly leveraging its powers to dominate yet another domain and a company I have no real sympathy for that is deeply entrenched in the market due to good products and many patents.

I'm fearing litigation and dirty tricks rather than the creation of new, better and cheaper products. In one sense, that might be "competition" but it's not the sort that actually benefits anyone.

Of course, if I prove wrong and they actually do something decent, I'll have no complaints. I just don't find that likely.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20174667)

All of these new MS "Graphics/multimedia/etc" apps are well and good, but since I've been building websites for the last 10 years and have had to put up with the cr*p the call Internet Explorer, I could care less what MS does. They crushed Netscape which had a pretty bad product and then with victory in hand made us all suffer since(no innovation/Mac IE/unfixed bugs/lack of standards support/shoddy CSS implementation/etc.).

Really a company I don't want to tie my career to. Maybe they should start by fixing their browser and implementing a roadmap to it's future improvement.

Re:Microsoft might be a monopolist... (2, Insightful)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175409)

Adobe? The same lazy company that STILL hasn't released a 64-bit Flash player for either Windows or Linux. XP x64 has been out for something like four years now, now Vista x64 is out too.

Unacceptable - 64-bit is solidly here now, even my non-technical mom, and my son's daycare provider, both have 64-bit machines. (Albeit with 32 bit XP on them)

Much as I dislike a lot of stuff about Microsoft, I'm sold on Silverlight. Adobe's apparently ignoring the evolution of their products. I am very sick of getting "Click here to install the Flash plug-in", only to see their lame excuse "We're working on it". Give us at least a crappy beta version guys...

Multiplatform Flash? (4, Insightful)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173219)

Adobe's CEO, calling Microsoft a '$50 billion monopolist,' has questioned whether Silverlight will be compatible with non-Windows operating systems
While it's certainly a valid point, I can't help remember how long it took Adobe to build Flash 9 for Linux, after first stating that Flash 7 would be the last version available. I'm just as concerned with Flash10 support for non-Windows OSs as I am Silverlight support.

Re:Multiplatform Flash? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173293)

heck, as a FreeBSD user, I'm still waiting* for a functional/stable version of flash on my OS of choice

* Sarcasm is noted here, I actively enjoy having a very good and valid reason not having that application installed on my computer.

Re:Multiplatform Flash? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173321)

Let them both die and the world will be a better place. I'm talking primarily about Flash and Silverlight.

I have to agree. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173381)

What, specifically, is Bruce Chizen's plan to support non-Microsoft OS's?

Don't bitch about how the bad monopoly is being mean to you when you aren't doing anything much to help the nascent competition.

Paying one programmer to port and support your apps on other platforms does more than all the public whining about how Microsoft is being mean.

Re:Multiplatform Flash? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173395)

Except that Silverlight will likely never have Linux support, where, at least with Flash, Adobe has some motivation to offer Flash on Linux. Silverlight, Microsoft's PDF replacement, and a host of other technologies on Microsoft's horizon are nothing more than attempts to kill desktop Linux. You'll see support for this stuff on Mac OS X, but you'll never see it on Linux. They clearly see desktop Linux as a threat, and they're doing everyting in their power to stop it.

For it's part, Adobe's motivation is that if Linux on the desktop really does give Microsoft a run for their money, they'll need to support the platform since their goal is for their applications (well, their applications' output) to work for as wide an audience as possible.

Re:Multiplatform Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173925)

Um didn't the Mono guys already have Silverlight more or less handled in about a week? During the Silverlight introduction which was barely a beta? Adobe's motivation is to not become obsolete, somehow, as computing becomes more network based. Silverlight does what Flash is most popular for, better, far better. Flash 10 might be better for higher resolution video. Actually, it better be, a lot better.

Re:Multiplatform Flash? (1, Troll)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173967)

o really? [mono-project.com] check out pictures of Silverlight on Linux from Miguel's blog.

Mono demonstrated Silverlight support in 3 weeks. They plan on having full support, packaged nicely by the end of the year (iirc). Microsoft has stated they will support Linux, even if you are skeptical, the standard is open and anyone can implement it. The Mono project is.4

Re:Multiplatform Flash? (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174695)

Microsoft has stated they will support Linux


Citations, please.

the standard is open and anyone can implement it.


To Microsoft, an 'open standard' is one in which they get to hide certain details so that only their implementation works properly, of course. In Microsoft-speak 'cross-platform' (which is a term used on the Silverlight MSDN site) means that it runs on Windows XP and on Windows Vista.

Re:Multiplatform Flash? (2, Insightful)

semiotec (948062) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173567)

Exactly. Not to mention the still total absence of major non-free (as in beer) Adobe products (e.g. Acrobat, Photoshop-related) for Linux. They were quite happy being the "monopoly" in their areas, and as far as I know, they only really opened up the PDF spec after MS announced Metro as a direct competitor to Adobe.

They should stop complaining about MS monopoly when they are one of the major contributing factors towards preventing people moving away from MS products. Even Mac users are treated as second class citizens behind Windows users these days.

Plus, if they want to compete, more on better technology and less on publicity. Calling MS a "monopolist" isn't going to make it go away.

Re:Multiplatform Flash? (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174113)

PDF has always always been an open format. They just made it open-er. I'd like them to open source flash, that way every platform on the planet will have it and solidify its dominance in the market over MS's crap.

Re:Multiplatform Flash? (1, Flamebait)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173767)

Maybe. At least Adobe is just slow and/or lazy. MS has a vested interest in crippling OSes other than Windows.

Re:Multiplatform Flash? (1)

Almahtar (991773) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174869)

"While it's certainly a valid point, I can't help remember how long it took Adobe to build Flash 9 for Linux, after first stating that Flash 7 would be the last version available. I'm just as concerned with Flash10 support for non-Windows OSs as I am Silverlight support."

Adobe never stated that Flash 7 would be the last version available for Linux. Macromedia said that. Adobe didn't own Macromedia until after Flash 8 was released, as a matter of fact.

The very first version of flash Adobe released (flash 9) had an officially supported and VERY compatible, stable Linux port within months of the Windows release. I've never had problems with installing it, with sound, with sound-video synch, etc. The only problem I had with Flash 9 was that it stole all keyboard input on mouseover. I've heard that was fixed but I haven't bothered upgrading because I'm lazy.

Up Up Down Down Left Left Right Right B A Start? (3, Funny)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173225)

Is that what I'll need to input in order to access the graphics-related functionality in Google Earth?

Re:Up Up Down Down Left Left Right Right B A Start (1)

eMartin (210973) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173613)

No. You'll need to pony up $400 per year for Google Earth Pro.

Google Earth is a very useful tool for architects when used with SketchUp. The $400/year license for the Pro version lets you save higher quality images and gives you the right to use them in presentations and renderings.

Compatibility... (5, Insightful)

laddy (159448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173237)

"Adobe's CEO ... has questioned whether Silverlight will be compatible with non-Windows operating systems"

Because I've neeever had problems with Flash on my Linux machine...

George Bush Is A War Criminal (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173245)


So what else is knew?

P.S. : Fuck Bush [whitehouse.org] .

Wake me when there is democracy and freedom in the United Gulags of America.

cross platform oncre and for all time (2, Insightful)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173313)

Adobe's CEO, calling Microsoft a '$50 billion monopolist,' has questioned whether Silverlight will be compatible with non-Windows operating systems,


Silverlight has been cross-platform since launch. The Adobe CEO questioned whether this would persist. Microsoft didn't invest on porting a subset of the .NET framework to Mac only to deprecate it. No, Silverlight will continue to be cross-platform for long while ... especially if the marketplace stays competitive. Whether or not its optimized well enough for the other platforms, well that's another story.

Photosynth Tech Preview Requirements (0, Troll)

saudadelinux (574392) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173463)

from http://labs.live.com/photosynth/sysreq.htm [live.com]

Operating System: Only Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista RC1 or later are supported at this time.
Web Browser: IE6, IE7, Firefox 1.5 and Firefox 2.0
Memory: 256 MB of memory is a bare minimum; 1GB recommended.
Disk: This technology preview uses almost no disk space. The ActiveX control is less than 5MB in size, and no local disk storage is used when the code is running.
Graphics: We have tested Photosynth on graphics cards that are "Vista Aero Ready". This includes: support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum), and 32 bits per pixel. If you want to find out whether your card is suitable, the Vista Upgrade Advisor tool will tell you. Photosynth may run on cards that do not meet this requirement, but performance may be poor and functionality may be impaired.
I think we can all see where this is going...

Re:cross platform oncre and for all time (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173485)

Does Adobe's comments smack of the pot calling the kettle black - for serious graphics work Adobe are top (only?) dog, PDF for all its faults is a defacto standard - and love it or lothe it that means so is Acrobat....

Re:cross platform oncre and for all time (2, Insightful)

PyroPunk (545300) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173721)

It's cross platform from the standpoint of the browser plugin works on Windows and Mac, but to create the Silverlight content that runs you need to do it on Windows; at least at this point. Expression isn't a Mac tool. But, I can fire up Flash on Windows or Mac to create Flash content, and also use some Open Source tools on Linux to do that. I think that may be what he means on cross platform.

Re:cross platform oncre and for all time (4, Insightful)

larien (5608) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173793)

Microsoft didn't invest on porting a subset of the .NET framework to Mac only to deprecate it.
LMAO... Are you serious? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they did that. They pay lip service to "cross-platform", get everyone to invest their futures in it, get locked in and then they stop maintaining it. That way, everyone now has a load of windows-only stuff that they're stuck with.

Mod parent up (4, Insightful)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174047)

That way, everyone now has a load of windows-only stuff that they're stuck with.

This is one of the reasons I think Mono is a bad idea. All Microsoft has to do is be friendly to Mono, until everyone drops their guard and decides it's okay to develop in dotNET. Then, all they need to do is start enforcing their patents, and it's all over...

Re:Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20174721)

til everyone drops their guard and decides it's okay to develop in dotNET. Then, all they need to do is start enforcing their patents, and it's all over...

Your patent worries have been discussed numerous times here, so I won't go into why you're a fool for saying that.

Anyway, I really don't think Mono is around so that the OSS developers will switch to .NET. You'll never get a Python or Ruby web developer to start using C# and ASP. (Unless they're brain damaged)

Mono is around for those companies that already have existing .NET applications and want to transition away from Microsoft. First you port your .NET apps to Mono+Linux. After you see that all is good, you rewrite those programs in something else that isn't locked to a vendor.

Besides, judging by the number of job postings for C# developers, and the number of job postings for RoR developers, I think everyone's already decided that it's O.K. to develop in .NET.

Hell, it pays my bills a lot better than some shitty startup using what-ever-is-free could ever do.

Some nerve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173399)

The Microsoft bash is nothing but fodder for the simpleton fan boys that ride the bash Microsoft bandwagon no matter what.

Soft Scissors Research Paper & Movie (4, Informative)

bcolflesh (710514) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173407)

Looks like a great tool to me:

http://vis.berkeley.edu/papers/softscissors/ [berkeley.edu]

Re:Soft Scissors Research Paper & Movie (1)

figleaf (672550) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173533)

Man. Thats very impressive.

Re:Soft Scissors Research Paper & Movie (1)

Thagg (9904) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174713)

Indeed, the softscissors tool looks completely amazing. There is a tool called Knockout that did something like what softscissors does, but they have taken it quite a ways beyond what Knockout has done. Of course, Knockout is a "product" where softscissors is a "research program", and it will be interesting to see if there are problems with the softscissors technology that will show up if they do productize it.

Basically, what these tools do is semi-automatic matte generation. Most people are familiar with the bluescreen process, where an actor stands in front of a constant-color blue screen, and the algorithm (either embodied in software or hardware) can determine which pixels, and which fraction of the edge pixels, belong to the actor, so that it can be smoothly composited over a different background. This technology was pioneered by Vlahos quite some time ago, and embedded in the Ultimatte keying machine -- the math is remarkably (sickeningly, really) simple.

These new techniques are for still-frames only at this point, and require the artist to draw a fat line around the edge of the foreground object. The inside edge of the line is all pixels guaranteed to be part of the foreground, and the outside edge of the line are all pixels guaranteed to be part of the background. The program then analyzes these two pixel-sets and generates statistics to determine which of the pixels (and what percentage of the pixels) belongs to the foreground. This works because there are at least some characteristics of the foreground that are different from the background -- and the program can find them.

They generate truly remarkable mattes of people and animals with long, flowing, edging-toward-transparent hair, that just have to be seen to be believed. They get quality similar to those of bluescreen techniques but without requiring any special background.

I'm impressed. It's a lot of work, but the results are worth it.

Thad Beier

Correct me if I'm wrong (4, Insightful)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173411)

But isn't Microsoft the developer of Direct3D, which is now a premiere graphics API for anything Windows? Yes, OpenGL still is extremely important, but I just don't see why it's a surprise that Microsoft has so many researchers contributing to the field of computer graphics when they develop one of the two biggest graphics platforms in the world.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173495)

The Slashbots think all software innovation comes from either Google's purchases of startups or from open-source developers slavishly copying Microsoft products. Thus, this is news.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (4, Informative)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173527)

Its not only DirectX, MS was involved with OpenGL years ago as well until the OpenGL group didn't want to target 3D hardware for gaming.

MS also has put a lot of money in research in the area of Graphics, from photo recognition to camera input device concepts, etc.

There is also the entire XBox division which has now spent years understanding graphics, rendering, and has even been instrumental in shaping the design of GPUs in NVidia and ATI cards.

XBox technology is also at the heart of the new Vista graphics subsystem. Adding features that make up DX10 and WDDM, all the way from unified Shaders to GPU RAM virtualization to OS level GPU pre-emption and physics/math support on GPUs through a standard API.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (1)

jusDfaqs (997794) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173929)

My Moore-ISH opinion;

I agree what is so surprising about Microsoft utilizing the massive amounts of error reports delivered from Windows XP/Vista third party applications crash reporting to help an build an application suite to compete with said third party applications. Lets all join in with ADOBE and scream monopoly, no seriously, what is the harm in having another offering from the great giant, I am perfectly happy not using their software now. Surely they're alternative to the Creative Suite Strains offered by http://www.adobe.com/ [adobe.com] Adobe but, I sure as hell don't know what it/they are

Questions Linux Support? (2, Interesting)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173435)

In other related news today:

Microsoft Nurtures Linux Silverlight Port
http://www.sdtimes.com/article/LatestNews-20070801 -46.html [sdtimes.com]

I have more faith in MS and Silverlight on cross platform than I do Flash anymore after the past few years. Not only is Silverlight already available on other platforms it even supports 64bit (gasp).

And this is just the Silverlight 1.0 RC and MS doesn't expect long range use or adoption until 1.1 is finalized as it adds in massive amounts of support for web interaction and more language support. (1.1 is already in developer circles, and will be out not long after 1.0)

Also for people worried about adoption, take a look at MLB.com. There are a lot things in Silverlight especially on the programming side that Flash just can't do easily. Silverlight not only builds on Vista XAML technology for the web but also does HD quality video and can also do single feed streaming unlike Flash.

Single Feed streaming (1)

figleaf (672550) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173509)

What is Single Feed streaming? Can you elaborate?

Re:Single Feed streaming (1)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173573)

Multi-Cast would have been a better team. In other words the Video Content provider only has to allocate bandwidth for 1 stream of the content even if 100,000 people are viewing the video at the same time.

This is used already in Radio on the web and is becoming more important with Video on the web with Live Broadcasting of HD content.

Basically even a small internet company could provide 100 channels of HD video content in live streams via Silverlight.

(This is what Windows Media Server technologies already do, but with Silverlight it can stream from non-MS servers and can play on non-MS software.)

Mod parent up (1)

GroundBounce (20126) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173785)


This is basically good news. Adobe software is certainly cross platform if cross platform is defined as Windows and Mac. But Adobe has been no great track record on supporting Linux. Even Flash player and Acroread, which have had Linux support, have had big holes and delays compared to Windows and Mac.

As others have pointed out, while MS has a monopoly on PC OS and Office software, Adobe has a near monopoly on the graphics content creation market, their products are expensive, and they could certainly use some competition.

In the long term, this could also be good news for MS and MS shareholders. MS still holds a firm monopoly in OS and Office software, but these monopolies are under attack, particularly in the Office software market, where eventual adoption of open (or more open) formats will reduce the lock-in factor and make adoption of free/cheap Office suites much more feasible for many. Microsoft should be expanding into other software markets. There are very few companies the size of MS who have survived and grown so long on just two products and MS would be wise to be in other markets when those two monopolies eventually begin to weaken.

Re:Questions Linux Support? (3, Informative)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174241)

I have more faith in MS and Silverlight on cross platform than I do Flash

Come on. You can't seriously believe Silverlight will continue to be cross-platform, after Microsoft has a large enough installed base.

Re:Questions Linux Support? (1)

kendor (525262) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175353)


Background: I've attended last eight FlashForward conferences, I'm going to Flash on the Beach, I've programmed some non-trivial Actionscript. I like Flash and believe in its potential to create effective interactive experiences. That all said, based on what I've seen of it, Microsoft is set to give the Flash platfom a well-deserved pounding, and I think there's a good chance that when the smoke clears Redmond will be the king of this particular hill.


Why? The analogy is why I started my career with Dreamweaver, watched its development stall, and am slowly but surely replacing all of my workflow with Visual Studio 2005/VS.NET 2008 beta. If you're trying to code anything, VS.NET just flat-out kills Dreamweaver. It kills it because it is better in most every tangible and intangible way. I hate to sound like the fanboi but VS.NET 2008 may be the best-designed and best-implemented tool I have ever seen. When you get past the point of trivial scripting and pre-baked behaviors, it is really, really nice to have an IDE that anticpates and understands the intent of what you are trying to do with your programming.

At this point the .NET framework is mature and the alpha version (post v1) version of Silverlight will incorporate a subset of .NET. For those out you not invested in it, the ".NET framework" is a collection of about nine bazillion classes and associated methods(functions) that Microsoft has already done the work of making. Once you learn how to plug into that API, you can effectively "outsource" much of the boring parts of your job to some poor schmo in Redmond. And if you want to build custom classes atop that that extend the functionality to the specific business problem/web problem you're trying to solve, you can do that, too. Your custom classes and custom controls become a "first-class" part of the VS.NET IDE, showing up in intellisense, prompting you with documentation, and so on. This is so powerful.

.NET's maturity and the maturity of the VS.NET tool are the twin reasons that Adobe should fear Silverlight. Programming Actionscript sucks by comparison with programming C#, and I say that having learned Actionscript first and C# a distant second. Actionscript-specific coding tools are comparatively weak and toy-ish, even fairly good tools like PrimalScript's IDE. Working with Silverlight is going to be a natural progression for those of us already making ASP.NET applications, and what we already know about the .NET Framework will save us thousands of lines of boring code. Let Microsoft implement the IO and the DB layer and async network communication and non-sucky collection types. For something like Silverlight, I want to play at a high-level and work quickly. I'm guessing that .NET/VS.NET will do this a lot better than AS2/AS3, and for that reason, Adobe should be quite concerned.

-KF

If I Were Adobe (5, Interesting)

balazsa (192045) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173457)

If I were Adobe, I would start to push Linux products out of the door like crazy.

Re:If I Were Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173551)


Most of us would be happy for Intel/OSX native versions of Adobe/Macromedia products.

Re:If I Were Adobe (1)

vought (160908) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174909)

Most of us would be happy for Intel/OSX native versions of Adobe/Macromedia products.


No kidding. Adobe killed Framemaker by taking it off of the Mac (after they made a half-hearted effort at porting it to Linux.

I'd love to know how many licenses they're selling now that every just uses Word (which won't work reliably for anything over about forty pages) instead.

Re:If I Were Adobe (1)

zero2k (453777) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173593)

Why? it's not like Linux has a big market uptake in the design and publishing industry, nor consumer market for that matter. Plus virtually all Linux default installs lack color matching and profiling capabilities; that and other things that are necessary for graphics and design.

Re:If I Were Adobe (2, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174127)

And a lot of this is down to the lack or adobe apps being available for linux.
If adobe had ported their apps several years ago, than microsoft's position within this market would be much weaker making it a lot harder for them to force adobe out in the way they're now trying.

Yes and No. (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173921)

They would be very wise to do more in Linux, but it's just not likely.

1. Worked with Adobe corporate types I can tell you the riskiest thing they've done in a LONG time is choosing a new restaurant for lunch.

2. They've got the Graphic Design market easily in hand world wide. Moreover, the mere discussion of alternatives to many people that use their tools every day is a thoughtcrime. Why screw that up by validating Linux? If they offer any of their desktop publishing software on linux, then the good Free desktop publishing tools and color management systems already available are the worst kind of competition.

3. "Linux" as a market size is unknown. The corporate types rely on market research for their quantifying Linux and there's no perception of a reliable source of this kind of data. Therefore, the market is ignored. It would be career suicide within Adobe to promote, much less discuss seat-of-the-pants prognostications.

Re:If I Were Adobe (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174873)

If I were Adobe, I would start to push Linux products out of the door like crazy.
I agree they should. That would make sense. However, note how long it took them to release products for Intel Macs. And note that only now they are trying to recapture some of the video editing market with Premiere Pro for Mac. I think it will be a long long time before they can get their act together for Linux.

This is a shame because this really hurts Linux. I'd love to upgrade my windows box to Linux - but I can't because I need the Adobe products. It's the only reason I don't.

Or maybe... maybe the new competition will make Adobe products a little cheaper, less complex and more adaptable. I may not like Microsoft but after many years of using, and needing to use, Adobe products every day, I welcome the first company that puts them out of business. I love what I can do with their software but I have no more respect for them than they have for me as a user.

I'll jump ship tomorrow for the better product and the cheaper price. I have no love of Adobe, they taught me that.

From the summary (1)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173465)

Adobe's CEO first calling microsoft a monopolist, name calling, the true sign of a mature, unthreatened CEO- of course they are a monopolist, but it has nothing to do with adobe's market- and if it was, adobe would have no problems because monopolies don't innovate. THen he says he wanders if it is compatible with other OSes, of course it will, most microsoft software is now, of course there may be slight differences like MS office, but it will come out for OS X at the very least.

Re:From the summary (1)

Tom9729 (1134127) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173569)

Could you clarify _which_ Microsoft products are compatible with multiple os'es?

They released a few things for Mac iirc (I have Internet Explorer and Office 98 on my Performa), but that was awhile ago and they really haven't been updated since. Anyway, I would hardly call that "most" of their software, even if they were updating it to this day.

THis could be good news! (1)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173549)

Maybe Adobe will be forced to lower it's outrageous prices.

Re:THis could be good news! (1, Insightful)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173625)

Considering Silverlight can be written literally in notepad or XAMLpad, this will put a big dent in Adobe's premium development tool costs that are required for Flash and Web content creation.

Re:THis could be good news! (2, Informative)

klngarthur (1114085) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174479)

you could make flash files with notepad or your IDE of choice using the flex 2 compiler which is free.

Dreamweaver vs. Expression (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173559)

I think Dreamweaver may have officially jumped the shark with the Adobe acquisition. The damn install put 800 MEG of adobe bloat, a new bonjour service, and a licensing service onto my system before it laid down a single Dreamweaver directory.

And starting Dreamweaver revealed a program (unlike the CS3 suite) that looked suspiciously (almost exactly like) Dreamweaver 8. It had a new tab for Adobe's Ajax framework and it might have some new support for cold fusion which I don't need.

It can no longer be said that Dreamweaver is kick-ass, open platform, in a lightweight package. It may even be bigger than Expression!!!!!! And MS has been learning from Dreamweaver. Expression only targets .net 2.0, but Dreamweaver as done nothing but go backwards.

Re:Dreamweaver vs. Expression (1)

jeffbax (905041) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174585)

Dreamweaver was a "kick-ass", "open", or "lightweight" piece of software? Those are really some dreams you're ... weaving.

If I ran MS (1)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173623)

I would be after the markets too. Also video, audio and whatever else I could get at. Some plans will pan out and some won't, but it is irresponsible (as far as the company goes) to not try to dominate such markets. It' about the money. Last time I checked, Adobe was not a registered charity.

What pisses us off most is that for a lot of computing, MS has suceeded.

Re:If I ran MS (1)

CowboyCapo (1127223) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173753)

Intriguing. One thing that I have noticed, as has just about everyone else here, is that Microsoft first attempted to create a vertical monopoly (in this case the Windows operating system), but since they brought IE into the mix, it has become increasingly apparent that they are also planning on having a horizontal monopoly over every field their software touches. This may sound a little inane, stupid perhaps, but could Microsoft be planning on becoming the first diagonal monopoly?

The real problem is... (0, Flamebait)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173675)

The real problem is that competing with a company that controls a monopoly operating system and is willing to use it to illegally extend its market share in other software sectors is like being in bed with an elephant. The elephant only need twitch and you are crushed.

We can't trust Microsoft not to illegally use their monopolies in either the OS sector or the office productivity suite sector to seize control over other areas and lock out competition from Open Source.

They are already buying their way to a victory over ODF so that customer lock-in will continue far into the foreseeable future. They're trying to fill the intranet with proprietary "standards" that they control and use their monopolies as a vehicle to push them. Again in an effort to control and ultimately destroy Linux.

Let face it. Microsoft is a corporate thug that needs to be busted up into at least three separate companies so that true innovation in the software industry can occur.

Re:The real problem is... (1)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174367)

Oh, shut up.

BTW, iWork '08, which Apple just released supports OOXML. So stop with the OOXML == lock-in FUD.

dumb companies... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173737)

Software application companies only develop for Windows, help MS keep their OS monopoly up, and then cry when MS decides to take those app companies' market too. They enabled it with their short sightedness.

Microsoft (1)

Grim Beefer (946632) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173755)

Here's a quick video [youtube.com] visually displaying one of Microsoft's SIGGRAPH papers. I especially like the part with a dancing frog and dinosaur. It's unclear to me as to whether or not this is an entirely different way to deform a SubD surface, or an augmentation to traditional bones and skin rigs. As much as I dislike Microsoft, I actually hope they eventually move into the 3d market, if only to spur on the production of the big three, 3dSMax, XSI, and Maya. The major 3d applications have been in a slump recently feature wise, including this year's SIGGRAPH announcements, and more serious competition would be welcome.

Flash MX for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20173827)

Adobe's CEO, calling Microsoft a '$50 billion monopolist,' has questioned whether Silverlight will be compatible with non-Windows operating systems
Am I the only one who wonder where is Flash MX for Linux? Silverlight or Flash doesn't solve the problem of being able to create content for those platform under Linux.

Just desserts... (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#20173955)

It is many of these companies that, through the release of countless windows programs, many exclusively for windows, that have helped microsoft get to where they are today.
Did they really believe that microsoft wouldn't move in on their territory sooner or later?

Why mention 4-month old Adobe Silverlight quotes? (4, Informative)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174173)

"Adobe's CEO, calling Microsoft a '$50 billion monopolist,' has questioned whether Silverlight will be compatible with non-Windows operating systems [computerworld.com] ..."

That Adobe "monopolist" quote is 4 months old. Did that quote really need to be dragged out again for this story?
(BTW, Adobe has some nerve calling someone else a "monopolist" when Adobe tried to collude with MS in price fixing to protect its own Office to PDF export monopoly (Adobe proposed that MS could include PDF export functionality in Office 2k7 if MS up'ed the price so as not to undercut Adobe's Office PDF-export tools.))

And Silverlight is already working on Macs, so the question of Silverlight being "compatilble with non-Windows operating systems" is more 4-month old FUD.

The submitter should've just gone with the story at hand, not dig up a 4-month old story about Adobe's fears of competing with Silverlight.

Re:Why mention 4-month old Adobe Silverlight quote (1)

orangesunglasses (1140459) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174795)

And Silverlight is already working on Macs, so the question of Silverlight being "compatilble with non-Windows operating systems" is more 4-month old FUD. --- There are more operating systems than windows and mac. If silverlight was an open standard then it would work on any Operating system

Adobe barks about MS Monopoly? WTF? (5, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174551)

Adobe is a monopoly unto itself!

Image editing? Photoshop. Sure there's GIMP, but frankly, GIMP sucks and has no value outside of RGB colour space. There are a few other apps, (Painter, Corel, etc.) but the POINT is: pros use Photoshop because it is the best. Period.

Bezier Curve? Illustrator. There used to be a better app, Freehand, but it died in the Macromedia acquisition.

Page Layout? Sure, there's Quark, but everyone HATES Quark, and InDesign does the job. So, that's not a monopoly, yet...

Web Design? Dreamweaver. nuff said.

Web based animation? Flash.

Adobe completely dominates the graphic design industry, and for Adobe to make noises about MS being some kind of a monopoly is simply ludicrous.

RS

Silverlight Already supports linux. (1)

espergreen (849246) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174699)

Not officially, but the mono team has already created a silverlight client for linux.
http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight [mono-project.com]

Re:Silverlight Already supports linux. (1)

orangesunglasses (1140459) | more than 6 years ago | (#20174867)

No, silverlight is not supported on linux. They will always be playing catchup to a proprietary 'standard', So the chance is that the unofficial client will not support all of the features.

Re:Silverlight Already supports linux. (1)

espergreen (849246) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175015)

Flash for Linux doesn't support all the features, and used to be several versions behind. Silverlight is not even really out, and we already have a promising linux client.

I would rather have a good open-source client to silverlight than an official closed-source one that was not well supported (like flash).

what now? (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#20175415)

Microsoft (as a monopolist) will stifle innovation by (what in this case seems to be) innovating?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...