15 hours ago, bondsbw wrote
But Silverlight's goal was achieved, which was to kill Flash. (Silverlight wasn't the main reason Flash died, mind you.)
The goal of this project is to replace HTTPS with something far better... at least, that's my takeaway. Once that happens, this project will either be ubiquitous (because it is the replacement) or die (because something else achieved the goal). And the need for a plugin is just until a major browser implements the protocol directly.
wrong in many ways but a small bit of right....
it was a better way to deliver a application over the internet that could run code on a client that would take advantage of the client hardware and of the internet. that it also provided a standard for how the UI was rendered that allowed the developer to not have to worry about the client os and conflicting versions of web browsers html and css support.
in every one of these Silverlight did in fact deliver and worked.
the failure of Silverlight was not a technical issue with what it did or how it did it.
the problem was a mixture of the politics inside Microsoft and in the software community.
*IF* some other company like say Google had put forth the same code and promoted it as a new internet standard I bet it would be main stream right now.
Google would have done the open source thing and the internet standards thing but it would have still been the same platform. the key difference would have been a lack of the name "Microsoft" and the political baggage that brings to the table.
the Microsoft side of the problem is that they have to many different teams pushing for different goals and no one took charge of that and had the pull to stick with it to the point of getting it open source and an internet standard. that would not fix the baggage but would help with adoption.
as for the apple factor that hurt but it was not the killer.