The Olympics should be as open as possible. There has to be some sort of monetary deal between Microsoft and NBC. This really could have been a great time to push HTML5.
If you think the Olympics should be accessible to all, then HTML5 is definitely not the way. NBC's core audience is the general masses who are predominantly IE and couldn't do anything with HTML5 video.
I saw the same message when attempting to view a video on NBC's Olympics site. After grudgingly installing Silverlight I was still unable to watch anything. The videos require Silverlight 2 or 3, neither of which is supported on a PowerPC mac.
I don't understand why they are trying to push 2 proprietary formats on us. You think they would at least try to stick with just one if they weren't going to go with HTML5.
I think the Olympics are 80% business, 10% politics and 10% athletic competition. No wonder NBC can call the tune. Since I don't really care about the Olympics (YMMV, 'sOK) I don't watch and don't have Silverlight installed.
I wonder if Adobe can build a Silverlight plug-in in competition with MS, just like the many .PDF readers available from 3rd parties.
NBC doesn't care about formats. They probably made a great deal with Microsoft to make Silverlight the exclusive choice for their Olympics coverage. NBC makes some money and Microsoft gets their plug in installed on a lot of machines that wouldn't otherwise.
But seriously, me too. And I know EXACTLY what Silverlight is and I am OK to have it installed on my computer. Lightweight, fast, not very useful but... in this case it has an use: me watching the damn Olympic vids.
Yes, I have flash installed, but very grudgingly and only because I also have flashblock installed on firefox and chrome. It pisses me off every time I need to unblock it and it really pisses me off after I unblock it and find it was an unnecessary waste of time to watch the "flashy" animation that added no value to the web page.
(/me gets off soapbox, wipes the spittle off face)
The moral of this story is never make your users jump through hoops to view your content, try your product, or use your services.
I can understand having moral objections to yet another proprietary web technology but I think your argument falls apart when you feign indignation about having to push "install plugin" and wait 4 seconds. As far as technical hoops go, that's pretty lame.
Smooth Streaming...seriously, I have never met a single objective person who did not recognize the Silverlight HD streaming solution to be superior to Flash. I will take quality over adoption of an unfinished HTML spec.
You are not NBC's customer; Microsoft is. I am sure that Microsoft paid a lot of money for this, and it was money well spent.
This is a trend that's only going to continue. I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft sponsor another major video website like Hulu to get Silverlight installed on more computers. I think in a few years Adobe may have to resort to paying to get the Flash plugin installed.
Another geek complaining about non-standard plug-ins. I really wish HN had categories so I could filter out repetitive rants.
If the author didn't install Silverlight and watched the video he wanted, that is pure ideology borderline religion and I can't feel any sympathy for him.
Sorry but I'm not a militant ideologist. I'm all about pragmatism and net value. If I have to install a non-intrusive plugin in order to watch a video, so be it.
"The moral of this story is never make your users jump through hoops to view your content, try your product, or use your services."
The author completely contradicts himself. He's arguing not to use things that need to be installed, yet saying they should have used Flash, which is something you install. Flash is on 98% of computers (his figure) because those people installed it. At some point, they had to jump through a hoop. I haven't need to jump through hoops to view Olympics videos because I already installed Silverlight.
If you have flash and you refuse to install Silverlight out of some moral anti-plug-in stance then you are just being silly. At that point you're just haggling over the price: http://jo-kes.blogspot.com/2007/06/churchill-humor.html
The page loaded, and I started reading the story, and then the whole screen was covered by a popup that said "Something went wrong loading the page, reload or go to a different page". No way to close it to finish reading. Might have even been flash covering it up.
Because of you mentioning the snowboarding video I installed Moonlight only to be confronted with this: "Due to Olympic broadcasting regulations, NBC is only allowed to show Olympic competition video on the internet to users in the United States and U.S. Territories (including Puerto Rico). Users outside of those locations will still have access to an extensive set of non-event video content on NBCOlympics.com including the video listed below."
The point is that some people really hate Silverlight, and others simply cannot install it. Why would anyone choose it as the platform for their business?
So instead of taking one simple step to watch the Olympics in the best quality possible the author would rather rant about wanting to use a technology that doesn't exist yet(HTML5) or use a technology that cannot deliver the the highest quality(Flash). The simple truth is Silverlight has the capability to deliver the most superior quality video. You can argue all day long about how you don't like 3rd party proprietary software, but the fact is, NBC went with Silverlight because it's the best solution that exists today. Sounds like good business to me.
I heard a story from a friend that had to choose between Flash and Silverlight for an on-demand movie project. (DRM was mandatory, so H.264 was out).
Adobe asked for $30.000 for some sort of an Adobe Server. And this included literally no support. They didn't show one sign that they cared for him as a client.
Microsoft was incredibly enthusiastic. They enrolled him in the BizSpark program, gave him all the licenses for free for the first years. At the same time he was getting daily calls from Redmond and Microsoft engineers to see how they could to help him.
I'm not saying this is the case here, still, his site is now using SilverLight too.
(If I repeat anything that's already been said, my apologies)
Silverlight is slowly becoming an alternative standard to Flash. Reason being is that it's more based on code rather than the custom resources Flash uses. Sure, you have to install something just like the Flash player but overall, Silverlight loads and runs faster.
I've been catching more and more Silverlight where on heavy video based content. All of Netflix's instant streaming is done through Silverlight. Sure, NBC could have just stuck with flash but honestly, their flash runs like crap.
I'm OK with waiting a moment to install a Silverlight player. Flash users already have to install a new player everytime Flash updates. What's the difference?
I think either way there would be unsatisfied viewers. NBC took a risk. Silverlight is probably one of the only things that Microsoft can impress me with.
33 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC
Not to say that it /shouldn't/ be as open as possible, just that it isn't.
http://www.uvexsports.com/2010/02/blonde-we-like-wins-downhi...
MS definitely (not sure about Adobe) chooses high profile video intensive sites to "partner with" to show-case their platform.
In short, it's business.
I wonder if Adobe can build a Silverlight plug-in in competition with MS, just like the many .PDF readers available from 3rd parties.
But seriously, me too. And I know EXACTLY what Silverlight is and I am OK to have it installed on my computer. Lightweight, fast, not very useful but... in this case it has an use: me watching the damn Olympic vids.
(/me gets off soapbox, wipes the spittle off face)
The moral of this story is never make your users jump through hoops to view your content, try your product, or use your services.
I can understand having moral objections to yet another proprietary web technology but I think your argument falls apart when you feign indignation about having to push "install plugin" and wait 4 seconds. As far as technical hoops go, that's pretty lame.
This is a trend that's only going to continue. I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft sponsor another major video website like Hulu to get Silverlight installed on more computers. I think in a few years Adobe may have to resort to paying to get the Flash plugin installed.
If the author didn't install Silverlight and watched the video he wanted, that is pure ideology borderline religion and I can't feel any sympathy for him.
Sorry but I'm not a militant ideologist. I'm all about pragmatism and net value. If I have to install a non-intrusive plugin in order to watch a video, so be it.
The author completely contradicts himself. He's arguing not to use things that need to be installed, yet saying they should have used Flash, which is something you install. Flash is on 98% of computers (his figure) because those people installed it. At some point, they had to jump through a hoop. I haven't need to jump through hoops to view Olympics videos because I already installed Silverlight.
Now back to uninstalling Moonlight...
Because here in Canada we get sent to http://www.ctvolympics.ca and they're using Silverlight as well.
Adobe asked for $30.000 for some sort of an Adobe Server. And this included literally no support. They didn't show one sign that they cared for him as a client.
Microsoft was incredibly enthusiastic. They enrolled him in the BizSpark program, gave him all the licenses for free for the first years. At the same time he was getting daily calls from Redmond and Microsoft engineers to see how they could to help him.
I'm not saying this is the case here, still, his site is now using SilverLight too.
Silverlight is slowly becoming an alternative standard to Flash. Reason being is that it's more based on code rather than the custom resources Flash uses. Sure, you have to install something just like the Flash player but overall, Silverlight loads and runs faster.
I've been catching more and more Silverlight where on heavy video based content. All of Netflix's instant streaming is done through Silverlight. Sure, NBC could have just stuck with flash but honestly, their flash runs like crap.
I'm OK with waiting a moment to install a Silverlight player. Flash users already have to install a new player everytime Flash updates. What's the difference?
I think either way there would be unsatisfied viewers. NBC took a risk. Silverlight is probably one of the only things that Microsoft can impress me with.