Adobe CEO responds to Microsoft's Silverlight

[nepcker]

Adobe boss: 'Microsoft a $50b monopolist'

By Martyn Williams, IDG News Service



The head of Adobe Systems has questioned Microsoft’s commitment to keeping its new Silverlight platform compatible with other operating systems besides Windows.

Silverlight, which is seen as Microsoft’s challenger to Adobe’s Flash format, was unveiled Monday at the National Association of Broadcasters trade show in Las Vegas.

“Microsoft, historically, has never demonstrated a commitment to maintaining a cross platform solution,” Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe, said in an interview Tuesday in Tokyo. He cited Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer as examples of Microsoft products that are still being developed for Windows but have been ended for the Mac platform.

Chizen was happy to suggest that Silverlight may suffer the same fate.

“Even though they say Silverlight is going to be cross-platform, and maybe the first [version] will be, I’m not sure our customers or the people that are trying to deliver that content will have the degree of confidence that if they go with Microsoft, they’ll be able to provide them with a complete cross-platform solution forever,” he said.

Flash has been around for 10 years and for much of its life was best known as a platform for quirky animations, but its use has exploded recently along with the popularity of Web-based video sites like YouTube, which use Flash to deliver streaming video to users. It is quickly becoming the de facto standard for delivering streaming media over the Web, and with Silverlight Microsoft hopes to grab a slice of this lucrative market.

Adobe doesn’t break out revenue for Flash alone, but it said last month that growth of Flash server products in its most recent quarter was more than enough to offset a decline in sales of its core applications, which dipped ahead of the anticipated release of new versions. It also credited the use of Flash in mobile phones as the main cause of a 59 percent jump in revenue at its mobile division during the same period.

With Flash fast expanding as a video delivery mechanism, Adobe used the same Las Vegas trade show to disclose its plans to extend Flash Video from the Web to the desktop with a standalone client, in effect taking on Microsoft’s Windows Media Player and other software like Quicktime and Real Player.

“We were missing a couple of things,” Chizen said, explaining the rationale for the application. “There are many people distributing video that would like to protect their video, in effect have DRM, and we enable DRM capability with the Adobe Media Player. Additionally, people are looking to monetize their video through clever advertising mechanisms and we’re able to do that with the Adobe Media Player.”

The software, which is due out later this year, also builds on the popularity of social networking by allowing users to rank or comment on videos directly from the software’s interface.

Despite his apparent confidence that Adobe’s offerings trump those from Microsoft, Chizen is careful not to underestimate the world’s biggest software company.

“Microsoft is a $50 billion monopolist who’s in the software business. I take them very seriously,” he said.

This year Adobe is also planning to launch Apollo, a technology that allows rich Internet applications to run offline. Chizen said he’s excited about Apollo but disappointed that it hasn’t been released yet.

In March, Adobe began offering an alpha version of the software, which has been downloaded 110,000 times, he said. The full version of the platform is due in the second half of this year.

Source

[gxsaurav]

oh comon, they are acting like whiners. Why are they so afriad of some little competition? it is not like MS is buying Adobe or forcing Silverlight

The WPF technology is open to all, Adobe can simply make flash in such a way that in Windows it is accelerated by the GPU (ala WPF/E)

Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer as examples of Microsoft products that are still being developed for Windows but have been ended for the Mac platform.

Yup, cos to further develop them they need access to the internals of MacOS X, such as Core video code & managibility to accelerate WMP Videos via core video & same with Core Audio. Did apple provide MS these? Nope.

[tarey_g]

I read about Apollo before and it seems exciting , and Adobe should not be afraid and make such statements , if they have got better product , it will stay. In fact its good for the users that adobe has compitition now , we are going to get better product from Adobe or MS in near future. And if silverlight does not remain cross platform in future then Adobe has nothing to worry.

[praka123]

Another problem in anvil for Open Source Linux,BSD users.M$ never port this thing to other platforms unlike adobe.

[Pathik]

yep.. If silverlight isnt cross platform than it ll result in microsofts loss.. Btw it ll hav to be supported by the browser basically so there r very less chances that ms restricts it to windows only

[navjotjsingh]

And if it restricts it will then only be left for IE users whose market share is declining against Firefox and Opera.

[freebird]

BUt Linux is their enemy and also is Open SOurce ?they cannot port this to Linux,but may release a mac version

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by freebird

BUt Linux is their enemy and also is Open SOurce ?they cannot port this to Linux,but may release a mac version

lolz,...ever heard of Licensing. Besides, MS now knows that the real money is in Web services these days, thats why they are going the Windows Live way. Just go & take a look at Turbolinux which has WMV/WMA 9 support inbuilt. Linux is not there enemy, they are not even close to being enemy.

MS knows that by opening up the decoders for these technology they are getting a lot big market. Decoding part is free to all just like it should be. But to make something in WPF/E you will need to buy the creator from MS, just like you buy from Adobe, whats the problem in this?

[freebird]

@gxsorav:I'd like U to read this link which explains my answer:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.p...d&cid=18696149
some quotes from u'd like to taste for the time:

Microsoft has been scanning the horizon to ensure that no one begins to kick at the blocks that prop up their monopoly. They are constantly looking for new ways to create more blocks. Some of these blocks are directx, drm, application/windows APIs, network interoperability (or the lack thereof), WGA/WGN lie, FUD, patents. Writing for OpenGL means you are writing for multiple platforms which gives a greater overall share.

Another new block is DRM. Yes they have had DRM in their product in one fashion or another for decades--copy protection on software back in the 80s, activation keys in the 90s. The WGN/WGA lie in the 00's is a psychological game meant to make the consumer less in control but to give them a feeling they are being protected. They are essentially forcing the consumer to allow Microsoft to spy on them under the guise of protecting the consumer from organized pirating--this is the fundamental lie. The average consumer is already covered because they generally purchase from the likes of Dell, Gateway, etc. Only a small percentage of sales are from systems integrators and the odds of getting one that is dishonest is even more minuscule. Today it is the essential arm-twisting/drafting of the hardware manufacturers to comply with their draconian DRM/CRM procedures.
Their APIs, not just DirectX, are also locking blocks, that block you from other platform development. Most companies don't have the time to learn multiple platform APIs in order to develop software. Apple recognized this (well NeXt computers did) when they were creating their development tools. Another block they use today are patents. Microsoft is not making a patent portfolio to protect itself, it is making it to prop up the monopoly and to attack competitors such as Linux. Software APIs for productivity applications aren't the barrier they once were. You can see that they will, over time, become less and less important as more and more programs build up for the competitor's platform. Since that form is diminishing there must be other ways for Microsoft to lock you into their platform. Gaming is a key API that they can change regularly. If they can keep changing the gaming API regularly then no entity can conceivably create a 100% compatible layer for other platforms. That's another reason why it is just silly to have game developers writing for directx instead of for OpenGL.

Networking interoperability is another key block that Microsoft uses to block migration from Windows to other platforms. If the interoperability is difficult or impossible even over the short term, large, medium, and small companies will very likely decline migration to Linux (or even OSX).

Patents and FUD seem to go hand in hand. Microsoft knows that if they say enough negative about Linux and threaten enough that migration will be slowed. If they create enough of a patent portfolio that will also slow development as competitors are constantly attempting to figure out what they can legally do and what they can't. DRM is similar in that it can't be copied and used in competitors platforms. The DMCA destroys all hope of that, at least if the user wants to stay 100% legal.

I don't know what the current installed base of Linux is and I'm sure most developers don't either. My estimate is that it is somewhere between 10 and 50 million computers.

When you use all of these together, including FUD and attempting to hide the sheer number of Linux (or any competitors true numbers) you can see how strong these blocks are. It only takes companies and individuals to start knocking more of these blocks out faster to bring down the monopoly. It isn't just having a product or even advertising your product or even giving it away for free. It is in ensuring that the right technologies are used and that enough blocks are kicked out that are supporting that monopoly.

Microsoft is scared shitless over this. They have huge monetary investments that rely on their Windows monopoly to fund them. Microsoft has no intention of getting rid of DRM. They only want to make it so that their major competitor in the arena of music is chopped down. Apple hold the market with the iPod and iTunes because of that DRM and if Microsoft can get everyone buying their products instead of Apple's knowing that they aren't locked in Microsoft can exert much greater advertising in order to overcome Apple's lead--not necessarily overnight but in much shorter order. Everyone knows DRM is a locking mechanism. You have an iPod you are stuck with it if you purchase music from Apple's store. That's a great thing for Apple. It is a highly negative thing for Microsoft. Once Microsoft takes over the digital music market then DRM will be back, in some devious way, a way they are planning for right now.

[gxsaurav]

Now that article is really written by a MS hater. I don't want to turn this into fight club ok. So no point in arguing.

They are constantly looking for new ways to create more blocks. Some of these blocks are directx, drm, application/windows APIs, network interoperability (or the lack thereof), WGA/WGN lie, FUD, patents.

Windows is there product. Is it wrong to make DirectX so that game developers have an easy to use paltform for making games for Windows ?

MS is not creating DRM. They must support it if they want to run DRM based content imposed by recording industry in ther own OS. Is it wrong to make your product more compatible with everything out there? They are forced to support it remember this.

Application & Windows API, again windows is there product, what you saying that it is wrong for maruti to make better cutions for swift 1 year after it is relesed? (example). Windows Application & API are made so that developers can easily make things for there product. Whats wrong in making it easier for developers?

Umm... i will pass this, not a network guy here. Unless you call seting up a LAN between Windows Vista & a laptop some networking genius

WGA, here is the thing. Windows is the most pirated OS out there. Now I myself don't like WGA nags but is it wrong to protect your product? Example, is it wrong for Maruti to seal the seat covers so that people don't tinker with it. Well, they paid for it & they can do whatever they want with the covers but the Maruti will not be responsible. Same goes with Windows, if you don't like WGA means you are pirating Windows in which case sorry MS won't care for you. If you have original Windows then WGA never nags you unless you tinker with the WGA files etc.

FUD, Patents????? umm...ok I do agree to the patent part, companies patent studpid things. Last I heard, some company patented the feature in which you can operate a Phone by touching it with fingers. Decoders should be free & open to all.

Writing for OpenGL means you are writing for multiple platforms which gives a greater overall share

Yup, & add to this Lack of optimisation & proper native OS code. Do you know why game developers use DirectX for Windows more then OpenGL? thats cos DirectX is native to Windows & is optimised for Windows unlike OpenGL which cannot be optimised for an OS. (it can be optimised for the hardware though just like DirectX such as Gaming consols)

. Only a small percentage of sales are from systems integrators and the odds of getting one that is dishonest is even more minuscule. Today it is the essential arm-twisting/drafting of the hardware manufacturers to comply with their draconian DRM/CRM procedures.

plz send this guy to India, or Lucknow. plz plz...& he will see how small the percentage of people is who actully buy Windows.

Their APIs, not just DirectX, are also locking blocks, that block you from other platform development. Most companies don't have the time to learn multiple platform APIs in order to develop software.

Lolz....just read above. DirectX is made so that developers can make games for Windows easier then they can in OpenGL for Windows.

That's another reason why it is just silly to have game developers writing for directx instead of for OpenGL.

Gamers of Gaming section of this forum, your reply is appriciated here. Crysis, Halo 2, WoW, NFS series...umm, they all suck in graphics right?

Freebird, plz stop acting stupid posts, just who the hell wrote this article anyway?

Now can we plz go back to topic. Adobe CEO is afraid of some nascent competition. They just proved again how afraid they are of competition which might break there monopoly in Multimedia market.

[nepcker]

@gx_saurav:

Yup, cos to further develop them they need access to the internals of MacOS X, such as Core video code & managibility to accelerate WMP Videos via core video & same with Core Audio. Did apple provide MS these? Nope.

MS can visit the WWDC (being held in June this year) -- Apple will provide those to mac developers. (Matter of fact, MS has been a major mac developer from the very beginning.)

Windows is there product. Is it wrong to make DirectX so that game developers have an easy to use platform for making games for Windows ?

No, this is just one of MS's evil ideas to keep their monopoly. When DX was released, it wasn't successful, as it was much harder to code, and wasn't open. But at around DX7, MS decided to pay the major developers to use DX (just like they are now paying to use Live Search) and other small developers followed.

MS is not creating DRM. They must support it if they want to run DRM based content imposed by recording industry in ther own OS. Is it wrong to make your product more compatible with everything out there? They are forced to support it remember this.

Yes. DRM exists only because record companies want so. When Apple had gone to these record companies to take the permission to sell their music online, they had refused. They only later agreed when Apple agreed to put DRM in there. Now other music stores have DRM too .

Crysis, Halo 2, WoW, NFS series...umm, they all suck in graphics right?

Who's developing it -- EA and microsoft, right? EA is one of the ms-paid company. That's why they use DX. As for WoW, it was released for the mac too, and at the same time the Windows version was released. I'm playing WoW on Mac OS X. So I presume World Of Warcraft is an OpenGL game.

@navjotjsingh:

And if it restricts it will then only be left for IE users whose market share is declining against Firefox and Opera.

You missed about Safari -- it is currently the third-most used browser -- right after IE and Firefox. It's the browser of choice for most mac userd.

@freebird:

BUt Linux is their enemy and also is Open SOurce ?they cannot port this to Linux,but may release a mac version

I've never heard of, or used any MS products for Linux. Same for Apple. I wonder when these big companies will start noticing Linux.

[tarey_g]

Originally Posted by nepcker

I've never heard of, or used any MS products for Linux. Same for Apple. I wonder when these big companies will start noticing Linux.

Why would any company want to support its rival in any way, unless there is something profitable for them (in a long run) in doing it. Business.

Originally Posted by nepcker

Who's developing it -- EA and microsoft, right? EA is one of the ms-paid company. That's why they use DX. As for WoW, it was released for the mac too, and at the same time the Windows version was released. I'm playing WoW on Mac OS X. So I presume World Of Warcraft is an OpenGL game.

EA is the biggest multiplatfotm company , it makes games for all consoles, i see no reason for them to spend manpower for developing a version compatible with any OS which has very little user base. PC gaming piracy is everywhere, what will happen when mac users pirate, what will be the nubmer of ppl left who will really buy the game? the number will be still way small then legit game buyers on windows platform.
Besides EA is the biggest publisher to be tamed as someone's b1tch.

WOW is all online nature, no piracy can be done and no similar shady stuff can be done , so any more users from other OS will be the true number of buyers for their game, so it perfectly makes sense for them to go multiplatform.

Directx must really be having something good which makes the biggest opengl supporting 'id software' to praise it.

[gxsaurav]

The thread has been hijacked by nepcker. i cannot post anything else cos this is turning in fight club & obviously I will be the one getting ban.

Back to topic. :Adobe is scared of competition. End of post.

[shantanu]

Originally Posted by nepcker

No, this is just one of MS's evil ideas to keep their monopoly. When DX was released, it wasn't successful, as it was much harder to code, and wasn't open. But at around DX7, MS decided to pay the major developers to use DX (just like they are now paying to use Live Search) and other small developer followed.

Ya right. So it is wrong for MS to make it easier for game developers to make games for Windows. DirectPlay, Directshow & Directdraw are already there. These technologies are optimized for Windows because of which developers doesn’t need to code this part mostly. DirectX is hard to code, Ya right. Plz never open a shader.fx file ever
MS decided to pay the game developers, ya right. Apple also decided to pay the Senators to implement a decree for iPods in school, they also hid the stock records. (all are rumors)

Originally Posted by nepcker

Who's developing it -- EA and Microsoft, right? EA is one of the ms-paid company. That's why they use DX.

Lolz….. , EA has many games in OpenGL. It is what the developers find easier. It makes sense to make an online game like WoW in openGL cos they can capture market of MacOS too, but if it is a FPS, it makes sense to go DirectX way.

[gxsaurav]

Mods, lock this thread.

[tarey_g]

^^ GX you dont want to get banned ?

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

Originally Posted by praka123

Another problem in anvil for Open Source Linux,BSD users.M$ never port this thing to other platforms unlike adobe.

then What the heck is the Mono project all about, MS Doesn't port but it makes things like these an Open Standard n anyonw who likes can make a product conforming to this standard and that's y if companies want support on their platform they r free to build .

[gxsaurav]

Why is adobe afraid? If MS doesn't makes it Cross platform, how does it affects Adobe ? People will still use Flash & forget silverlight. So....Adobe is here with benifit. Wonder are they scared or whining.

[ax3]

microsoft should b taken down NOW ....... its high time ........


hope ADOBE comes up with a NEW OS 2 beat microsoft ....... cheaper, stable & compatible with any DAMN hardware .........


phew .......

[i_am_crack]

I other words Adobe is scared because their might be a (slight) switch over to sliverlight too..you cannot argue on that...Ofcourse by that you goona loose the market share..Not thatz the prime concern. If you take me for example I would definetly would like to try .(Period)

eBro

[praka123]

adobe did release quality cross platform technologies and s/w for Linux too.for eg;acroreader and flash 9 itself though delayed.I am sure M$ will be aggressively promoting this new thing and once it reaches the minimum level,they will make it a monopoly for Windows users,ofcourse cross platform from Windows XP to Windows Vista sure they do!


there needs to be open source alternatives like gnash for flash etc as for silverlight too.always Linux users tends to be in lag when it comes to new propreitory technologies.but then again how can Mcdonalds give out their secret recipe to other restaurents.there never will be any plans for cross restaurent

I want to make sure that I'm getting this right...Sliverlight is going to kill Flash (which is everywhere on the internet right now) just like Zune killed the iPod, and Vista killed all other OSes, Xbox killed Playstation and Nintendo...

If the adoption of Zune and Vista are any indication of how quickly Sliverlight is going to be adopted, I'm not worried, and everything I have at home runs on Linux.

Originally Posted by praka123

adobe did release quality cross platform technologies and s/w for Linux too.for eg;acroreader and flash 9 itself though delayed.I am sure M$ will be aggressively promoting this new thing and once it reaches the minimum level,they will make it a monopoly for Windows users,ofcourse cross platform from Windows XP to Windows Vista sure they do!


there needs to be open source alternatives like gnash for flash etc as for silverlight too.always Linux users tends to be in lag when it comes to new propreitory technologies.but then again how can Mcdonalds give out their secret recipe to other restaurents.there never will be any plans for cross restaurent

I want to make sure that I'm getting this right...Sliverlight is going to kill Flash (which is everywhere on the internet right now) just like Zune killed the iPod, and Vista killed all other OSes, Xbox killed Playstation and Nintendo...

If the adoption of Zune and Vista are any indication of how quickly Sliverlight is going to be adopted, I'm not worried, and everything I have at home runs on Linux.

1.Silverlight will not be a big hit. Flash will still be there. Adobe just wont give up just like that.
2. When did zune killed ipod?. You are dreaming. IPod is still no.1. Zune comes nowhere near to ipod.
3. Vista killed all other OS?. Such has?.
4. Xbox did not kill Wii. Wii is still stronger than x360.

Get up. Microsoft just loves copying and copying they can not create anything own by themself.

[praka123]

Originally Posted by thunderbird.117

1.Silverlight will not be a big hit. Flash will still be there. Adobe just wont give up just like that.
2. When did zune killed ipod?. You are dreaming. IPod is still no.1. Zune comes nowhere near to ipod.
3. Vista killed all other OS?. Such has?.
4. Xbox did not kill Wii. Wii is still stronger than x360.

Get up. Microsoft just loves copying and copying they can not create anything own by themself.

@thunder:
Ahh...its just a satire i am trying to say reg all those lines u quoted. @tleast am a GNU/Linux User.

[nepcker]

The reason why Direct X was not successful till DX7 is because it was harder to code. MS bribed EA to use DirectX on all their PC games. Copying from EA, new developers started using DirectX on their games. Many of these games became successful and now many developers are using DirectX. Agreed, EA develops OpenGL games too, but most of their PC games are DirectX-based.

I also don't understand how it "makes sense to go DirectX way" for FPS games. Call of Duty series, Doom series, Quake series, Wolfenstien series, Prey, etc. are all great FPS games, and are based in OpenGL.

Coming to the point, all Adobe is now doing is saying that people should not believe in MS in providing cross-platform solution -- and they're right. But I don't think that it will drop the use of Flash. Taking the example of cell phones, many Nokia users won't move to any other phone than Nokia because they are accustomed to it. Similarly, I don't think that people used to Flash will move to silverlight. (Unless MS decides to pay some big sites currently using Flash to switch to Silverlight.)

[gxsaurav]

The reason why Direct X was not successful till DX7 is because it was harder to code. MS bribed EA to use DirectX on all their PC games.

Bull crap, no source & no proof to back this statement I suppose. Just pointing to any article on net won't help. Even I can point articles that Apple bribed developers to use .mov insted of .avi in video editing apps & 3ds Max.

EA develops OpenGL games too, but most of their PC games are DirectX-based.

Yeah, obviously. PC means Gaming on Windows, the most popular X86 platform for games, so why make in OpenGL when you can make in DirectX & save time cos much of the code is already optimised & ready to use for Windows.

[freebird]

DirectX?OpenGL is the real technology;M$ simply creates stumbling blocks on same technology already developed causing confusions and eternally M$ wins.for eg:M$ Silverlight vs adobe flash? M$ users can read below link:
http://tinyurl.com/2amjjc

[gxsaurav]

Yo freebird, leave your MS hatred aside for a second & read the above posts by me. Is it wrong for MS to develope a technology so that desigining things for their platform is easier for developers.?