Microsoft WPF vs. Adobe Apollo, part 329
Don’t miss the cool presentation app that Electric Rain showed me called “Standout.”
They chose Microsoft’s Windows Presentation Foundation to build their app on.
It’s really interesting to see who goes with one framework over another. I was talking with another developer last night at the Digg party who is a long-time Flash developer. He says he’s building something in WPF for introducing at Mix07 and tol me that WPF really surprised him in terms of the quality of experience that his team could build (he asked me to keep him confidential cause they want to stay in stealth mode until Mix07).
Are you a developer who has switched from Microsoft to Adobe or from Adobe to Microsoft because of either Apollo or WPF? I’d love to talk with you about why.
Anyway, here’s a short “Editor’s Choice” version so you can just get a quick 10-minute look. For a longer interview/demo, see ScobleShow.com.
Powered By 
April 20th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Don’t graphics like this actually take away from the message of a presentation rather than add anything though?
Lots of companies still only print in black & white.
The point is to get the graphs, data or business plan across to the audience, not to do a James Bond intro remake right?
Or am I just wrong here.
On Linux we have OpenOffice.org Presentation, which does a wonderful job at doing the same thing, but in a context that highlights the message rather than the vehicle for the message.
Again, or am I just wrong here?
April 20th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I watched most of the full video. I wonder if they made conversion tools for powerpoint or OO2 format and visa versa.
Otherwise, companies can’t leverage the templates they already had done, ect… and may not see this as a good investment.
The good thing about OpenOffice.org Presentation, besides the being free part is that it inter operates with Microsoft office formats, including powerpoint.
If this company is asking people to throw away their foundation layer completely and adopt this, without the market power of Sun or MS, it may not do very well.
For instance, I have never seen their product boxed or available in retail stores.
Just an observation.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I watched most of the full video. I wonder if they made conversion tools for powerpoint or OO2 format and visa versa.
Otherwise, companies can’t leverage the templates they already had done, ect and may not see this as a good investment.
The good thing about OpenOffice.org Presentation, besides the being free part is that it inter operates with Microsoft office formats, including powerpoint.
If this company is asking people to throw away their foundation layer completely and adopt this, without the market power of Sun or MS, it may not do very well.
For instance, I have never seen their product boxed or available in retail stores.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
duplicate sorry.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
They are not exactly the same thing in the wya of using it at the moment. but i have played with 21 silverlight development and 5 apollo ones.
For the most part i go with Silverlight since you can do true HD video and pristine enhanced font and graphics with it that will look better than flash ,have more adaptability and are indexable..
i think that is the big thing.. choosing silverlight instead of Flash assure you that every Silverlight Startup you do will be fully indexable..
The inmediate thing i imagine done in silverlight insitead of flash would be Wallop., how fast and cool would it be if it were done with silverlight?.
My biggest concern is that MS itself adopt it fast enough and that we get to see lots of MS development using them..
The most urgent should be Soapbox, spaces and hotmail.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
@Avatar,
I’m sure you know that developer had been able to use DirectX through ActiveX in IE since 1995. That’s 12 years of being able to produce the same type of application that silverlight facilitates.
The huge problem, even now with these easier implementations and developer tools is that there is a prejudice at Microsoft. They completely forgot Ubuntu and Linux users. You know those that actually make youtube videos popular by linking them on digg and other resource sites. And they are making the tech IE dependant as well.
ActiveX part 1 was a total mess. Even with nice tools and security, don’t you think ActiveX part deux has some chance at not being very successful? Or is the past irrelevant?
April 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
If you want to learn about WPF/E (silverlight), you can go to the experts over at Xaml.Net - they have worked on this for years have have quite a few kewl demos.
Scoble - sorry for the double post, the last comment I messed up.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Wow. Watched the really long video, but it was worth it. Doesn’t really look like a product that an individual user would use, but for big companies and stuff, looks awesome. I love the area where you can just gather media and info, and then drag it from there into the presentation. Really cool.
Ioannus de Verani
http://blog.verani.net
April 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
As a flash user since Flash 3, I can vouch for the quality I’m finding in WP/E via Expressions Web Designer, aka Silverlight. I’m getting ready to launch a new home technology business and I’m building out the website with both technologies. I’m brushing up a bit with web usage–it’s been a while since I’ve checked–but within a few months I think I’ll introduce a product with WPF/E. It’s an amazing way to demonstrate product and push your brand. It will be interesting to see the numbers in a year, and as I get more proficient at using the product I’ll consider deploying it more broadly if I keep liking what I see.
What Flash has is an ARMY of developers and with the integration you’ve got coming from Adobe’s other line of products, I think you have a company that Microsoft won’t push around.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:17 am
[...] Robert Scoble: Microsoft WPF vs. Adobe Apollo, part 329Scoble asks whether you are a developer who has switched sides either to or from WPF and Apollo. The Electric Rain video Scoble made is really cool, and they are one of those companies that provide tools for both SWF/Flash as well as XAML/WPF. [...]
April 21st, 2007 at 12:27 am
Robert, I cover this very issue in my most recent blog post (http://blog.kirupa.com/?p=86), but I think in the long-run, instead of seeing switchers, you are going to see developers familiar with both technologies who will use the right tool for the right job.
Cheers!
Kirupa
April 21st, 2007 at 1:42 am
That is the problem for developers, more technologies, confused customers, more headaches
April 21st, 2007 at 4:41 am
@10,
If everybody settled on 1 rich media file format, such as ODT for office documents, that problem would be gone.
The problem is that companies want to dominate with file formats instead of trying to sell their development tools and competing fairly.
The don’t want the other guy’s tool to open and edit a file made with their software.
Fortunately open source is changing this and FOSS programs are in fact standardizing, even with rich media formats. Even Microsoft is starting to feel the heat and pressure of governments that don’t want to take this kind of mind game anymore. California specifically is forcing Microsoft to standardize at least their office formats with a new bill.
So ultimately, in the near future, there will be 1 file format for office, and even rich media presentations, and MANY tools to edit those files. Free ones on Linux as well as proprietary tools on other platforms.
That’s the way of the future. Where people are no longer tied down to 1 development tool for a single piece of medium.
Even online applications will be able to edit these standard files. Google is leading the way there with it’s development tools online.
April 21st, 2007 at 5:33 am
wpf is not an option.
not even considering.
coming from M$? thanks but no thanks.
even if it can turn lead into gold.
Sorry M$, send me a laptop with wpf and i’ll consider it.
Or maybe i’ll wipe it out and install ubuntu.
April 21st, 2007 at 6:41 am
Robert,
I have been working with .Net since the first SDK in Nov 2000 on a project to implement Lisp and Smalltalk interpreters. Since May 2006, my focus has been on the browser environment using XBAP and WPF.
At the end of January 2007, I began a port of the entire project to Flash 9.0 not really expecting it to succeed. To my surprise, the ActionScript/Flash platform has worked out very well. Net has a few advantages like thread support and ActionScript has some advantages in dynamically loading/unloading code.
I am now working exclusively on the Flash implementation.
The reason for my switch is very simple: deployment.
I don’t comprehend the MS deployment strategy. They could have included .Net runtimes with the IE7 upgrade, but didn’t - or with an XP service pack.
.Net runtimes are available on maybe 2.5% (my guess) of Internet-connected machines while Flash 9.0 is 85% or more.
My view is that the next application platform will be the virtual machine - ie CLR/WPF or ActionScript/Flash (or maybe something else) and developers will write for the VM API without concern about whether it runs on Windows (any version), Macintosh, or Linux.
I assumed that the MS strategy with .Net was to own the next platform and that they would deploy the runtimes agressively.
But there have been an endless series of mixed signals, half measures and missed deadlines. And I am totally confused by this whole WPF/e aka Silverlight mess. It means three .Net API’s (WinForm/WPF/Silverlight) with the last one not fully specified.
Adobe’s Apollo is out and it works well - so the desktop is now covered by Flash as well.
Comparing .Net and Flash is easy. One is consistent, stable and available while the other is not.
April 21st, 2007 at 6:47 am
If you want to learn about WPF/E (silverlight), you can go to the experts over at Xaml.Net - they have worked on this for YEARS and have quite a few kewl demos.
Scoble - sorry for the triple post, the last comment I messed up. (NEED Coffee!) Maybe you can get a plugin for preview before posts?
April 21st, 2007 at 7:15 am
@12
WPF is not the same as silverlight. WPF is simply a class library for .NET
I have an MSDN professional subscription, so I get those annoying DVDs in the mail each month titled “Index & Webcasts” along with the other clutter.
Those are a good source for that information as well.
Even with the new .NET class library, I find the open tools much more palatable and the open formats such as SVG, ect.. much better.
Flash will not be displaced, ever, by a technology that does not have a Linux implementation. It’s just too widespread now to ignore. The digg community will not embrace it, and neither will the educated population. Sure you can impress a few execs with it, but that’s not going to translate to adoption.
Look at what happened between ASPX and PHP. Or flash and the alternatives.
Slick != adoption
Silverlight != WPF
Silverlight is an ActiveX object similar to Macromedia/Adobe’s for displaying vector graphics.
Except unlike Adobe’s it only works on x86 Macs and Windows, and there is no development platform outside of Windows.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:42 am
well said, chris. to reiterate, wpf != wpfe. the app that electric rain built is a wpf app and works only on vista. apollo apps on the other hand will be cross platform and do not have a vista requirement. they can also be designed and developed on pc and mac as opposed to wpf and wpf/e (silverlight apps) which will be pc only for design and development.
April 21st, 2007 at 8:24 am
I have a somewhat related question:
Why hasn’t something like “Standout” come along about 8 years ago? Computers have been able to show nice 3-D animations for all that long (even longer, actually).
Why have we been forced to use stone-age PowerPoint (or competitors) for all this time? Yes, I’m also implying PowerPoint and competitors haven’t evolved much in the last few years.
Also, Apple could have done something about it with their Motion software, if it was easier to use for presentations, but instead they gave us Keynote, which blends nicely with its competitors, and falls way short just like them.
I guess I’m just tired of being subjected to the same old slides all the time…
April 21st, 2007 at 9:40 am
@14
Various presentation tools based on DirectX and OpenGL have come and gone since 1997-8. Some were based on Java3d, others on different layers above DX.
The problem is that none of these tools or applications gained any traction and most of them simply faded away.
What bigger companies do is find out what people want, and try to make that better. Instead of making what they think is cool and hoping people will buy it.
One thing I didn’t hear mentioned is usability testing in Scoble’s video. That is VERY important for a tool like this.
http://www.betterdesktop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Data
Even Linux is doing usability testing now.
As simple as something may be to the team that actually made the product, it can be very difficult for end users that have never dealt with it.
That’s a huge hurdle they are trying to jump there. Again OpenOffice.org is so popular, because essentially, it’s very similar to the windows office suite, and it’s less intimidating for users. Interoperating with the same file formats doesn’t hurt either.
A lot of times when something is brand new, like this product, a company will make it free, and try to promote it that way so younger people can get a hold of it and get it into use. Here that doesn’t seem to be the case.
It looks like a brand new application, with brand new formats, a brand new work flow, brand new everything, and they are asking people to invest in it. The same people that already have tools that work for them that they do know how to use.
This is very similar to the strategy of the other DX based products that came and went in the past 9 years.
Maybe this will be different. Who knows. If it’s really aimed at big corporations, and that’s their user base, the price should definitely jump from $300 to $3000 I think. If you only get a handful of sales, normally you’d want them to be substantial.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:18 am
Presentation is in its infancy. When you have a commodity or you are trying to attract a certain demographic I don’t think black and white power point slides will cut it. This application also seems to extend beyond the typical computer to slide show scenario into the next generation of mixed media.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:20 am
Hey Robert -
At NAB this week this debate was alive and well. We interviewed Sean Alexander (from Microsoft) and Mark Randall and Simon Hayhurst (from Adobe)…as well as a bunch of end users. I also spent some off-hours time grilling them about strategy moving forward. (Available in the podcast and blog links off our site.)
I have to say AMP is pretty wild, and the energy in that room at the unveiling was some of the best all week. (Almost as wild as the RED camera, which for the 2nd year stole the show.) AMP finally makes the monetization piece real; and helps solves the infrastructure development issues for creative teams who will never have a big developer team to turn to. Some of the CTO’s from media companies big and small that I usually hanging with were bleary eyed this week just talking about the XML/PHP custom solutions they’ve been struggling with all year.
Anyway, we’ve posted some of it last week but we’re also posting more next week –podcasts, blogs and interviews, captured from the show.
You’re welcome to speak with our developers and designers as we’re beginning to test out both platforms right now. IMHO, neither is really ready for prime time (depending on how you want the pages to render, how rapidly you’re developing, how agile you need the process to be, and how much access you have to MS consulting svcs, etc.). Having said that, both Apollo and WPF are very powerful. Over the next 2 years there will clearly be a whole satellite industry of solutions (like Electric Rain) that make the tools easier to build with. It’s inevitable.
We’re relaunching our site next month, and it’s a pretty radical overhaul, incorporating some of what we’ve learned. And then more next Fall. Would love your feedback!
April 21st, 2007 at 11:50 am
@ Chris: It’s not so much that everyone should settle on a single format–competition in the formats themselves is good–it’s that the DOJ and th rest of us make sure that each of these formats work well with one another, hopefully complement one another, and are only used when there are a high number of users who can read such rich content.
From the designer perspective, it’s a testitmate to your merit and ability to see–without techmeme spin0–which technolgies YOU choose to deploy based on THEIR merit.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:59 am
“The digg community will not embrace it, …”
LOLOLOLOLOL
The “digg community”? Are you serious? A bunch of immature children that think they know everything about everything but in reality know nothing, and PRODUCE NOTHING worthwhile, while presuming to promote and condemn those that do PRODUCE something.
The “digg community”, indeed. I literally laughed out loud when I read that.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Mr. Robinson, that “immature” community is indeed perhaps 5 percent developers and they–if still around and not obsolte–are younger slashdot community. A few of the folks who read digg do matter. They certainly have the ability to influence even younger folks, who might be even brighter than they. You have to look at things 10 years from now always.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“Why have we been forced to use stone-age PowerPoint (or competitors) for all this time? Yes, I’m also implying PowerPoint and competitors haven’t evolved much in the last few years.”
The presentation field was vibrant ten years ago… I supported Macromedia Action!, which competed with Aldus Persuasion and others.
But then Microsoft included Powerpoint in Office, and quickly killed off the market. How could anyone rationally invest in developing presentation software any longer?
jd/adobe
April 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Regardless of the framework, thanks for sharing this… it really does illustrate the next evolution of presentation tools and the ability to progressively disclose and transition that information to the end user. Fascinating.
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 am
I think the question isn’t so much “Apollo vs WPF”, as it is “Flash vs Silverlight”. My opinion is that Silverlight, as it stands today, has a zero chance of winning.
The reason? Developers want to write RIAs that run on all significant desktop environments. Forget about market share of OSes (which Microsofties seem obsessed by). The point is - if it can cost a developer almost nothing to develop for all significant platforms, simply by choosing the right technology, why wouldn’t they do that?
Microsoft seems to seriously expect developers to be impressed by the cross-platform abilities of Silverlight. But they’re hardly class-leading, so I just don’t see that anyone will be wowed. To me, it looks like Microsoft has done a rather third-rate job in this regard.
For anyone that’s interested, I’ve written more on this on my blog @
http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/04/22/flash-java-silverlight-why-the-best-technology-will-win/
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
In the editor show it does not open with the line
“And who are you?”
I thought this was a trademark that would be in ALL videos.
Robert please make this happen.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Simon,
This story doesn’t involve “Silverlight”, but WPF.
But since you brought it up, Silverlight “apps” run on Windows and Mac. So your beef is that they don’t (currently) run on Linux. Your argument is that, devs will use Flash because that way they get Linux for free. But what if Silverlight is simply easier to use than Flash? For example, my understanding is that Silverlight uses C# while Flash uses C++. What if using C# allowed for quicker development time, fewer bugs, etc? It could be that a dev would sacrifice the 0.5% Linux share for that ease of development. (I get the 0.5% share from multiple web usage stat sites.)
I’ve read a bit on MS’s “Expression” tools, and they look very good. I’ve seen multiple devs saying that Silverlight apps are easier to develop than Flash. You think that means nothing, but I submit that it may well mean more than Linux’s pitiful web client usage. If not, Microsoft has talked of hiring people to do a Linux port. (You’d still hate Silverlight because you hate the company that makes it, but you’d have to find some other reason to “justify” your hatred.)
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 am
Hi I switched from MS VS.NET Web development to Flex development recently.
I guess I chose FLEX over WPF due to the market penetration already exhibited by the Flash Player, also the fact thats it crosses across all OS`s and will probably remain that way constantly.
Yes it was a change as I had to learn actionscript, but its got a thriving community with pretty good support from Adobe.
I am sure Silverlight will be a success but with such a large footprint needed to get running, it might cause a barrier to its success, at least with legacy systems. Where as flash player 9 is a relatively small footprint..
my two cents…
M
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 am
“For example, my understanding is that Silverlight uses C# while Flash uses C++.”
The logic in Adobe Flash Player is based on a single high-performance implementation of standard ECMAScript, with the addition of a richer-media object model.
The logic in Microsoft’s upcoming browser plugin, “Silverlight”, uses whichever JavaScript engine the hosting browser makes available, with all the additional testing and performance issues this implies.
jd/adobe
May 13th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I’m currently a professional Flex developer with a .NET background. Flex is okay for development, but MS has superior dev tools and Silverlight has a richer programming model. In my day to day work, I run into language/platform limitations inside Flash/Flex/AS3. I’m only aware of these limitations in large part because of my .NET experience using more powerful languages and runtimes.
As for art/design, Adobe is clearly the big winner with a mature set of tools. The Expression line-up (while a good first attempt) simply doesn’t compete. Now, this could be a problem because it’s 1/2 of the equation to building RIAs. So this is how I see it going down: Artists/Designers will continue to use their Adobe tools. HOWEVER, they will be exporting their content not as SWF, but rather XAML. A number of XAML exporters for Illustrator and Flash are in development already.
Supporting both Mac and Windows is enough x-platform penetration for most developers. Linux has Windows envy ;) You can’t beat Windows by copying. If you want to displace on OS, make it irrelevant. (Hint: that’s where RIAs can come in handy.) Silverlight adoption will no doubt come in the form of a Windows update and choosing Flash because of it’s 98% x-platform penetration won’t be a considerable argument anymore.
Silverlight has greater POTENTIAL than Flash/Flex because it has a solid programming model and not because support for a programming model was slapped on a graphics/animation tool in version 4/5 of Flash.
I’ll be continuing to use Flex/Flash in my day to day work and it’s not without excitement. The Flash Component Kit is certainly awesome (it allows you to take Flash content and export them as Flex components for seamless integration). BUT I will be actively studying Silverlight and searching the job forums for new positions…
Later!