up vote 14 down vote favorite
share [g+] share [fb]

Why would some people not want to install Silverlight? I'm assuming that this is for computers where the user has administrative rights.

Background: I made a few games in Silverlight and ran across several people who were going to play if it was in flash, but said they wouldn't install Silverlight.

link|improve this question
8  
Flash has such ubiquity that it's probably not considered an optional install for most users. However, many people have a resistance to installing browser plugins in general. It's just not very webby. – Mike Sickler Jul 16 '09 at 16:36
@Mike S, that can be an answer. – BenMaddox Jul 16 '09 at 17:20
Considering that this is gauging opinions I would suggest that you make this a community wiki. There is no clear answer to this. – Diago Jul 16 '09 at 18:11
@BenMaddox Indeed! I added an answer. Thanks – Mike Sickler Jul 16 '09 at 19:02
feedback

closed as not constructive by random♦ Aug 19 '11 at 12:12

This question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. See the FAQ for guidance on how to improve it.

23 Answers

up vote 28 down vote accepted

Anti-Microsoft

Not a reason I would use, but I'll bet it is a common one.

link|improve this answer
6  
+1 That's my reason... (and the fact that I use Linux and Moonlight doesn't work very well) – Zifre Jul 16 '09 at 16:34
7  
Honestly, this is somewhat the reason that I still refuse to install it. The web world was fine with one inaccessible blingdingity. (I'll be installing it soon, I promise). "You see, I'm not here to help you... because I love you or because I care for you, but because two hells is one hell too many, and I can't have that." – anonymous coward Jul 16 '09 at 16:37
7  
I'm convinced it's part of Microsoft's Evil Plot to drag everyone back into using their browser, their development tools, and their operating system. – Nathan Long Jul 16 '09 at 16:50
I don't think so, probably the 90% of possible gaming audience already has windows installed and play games on it. Silverlight is much more younger than Flash, probably some people do not know what is it. And one more, YouTube is not done with Silverlight... – Drake Jul 16 '09 at 18:58
3  
I really do not agree because this answer is way too superficial. People who reject yet another (binary) plugin most of the time have very good reasons to do so like Web Standards, platform neutrality, Open Source and license requirements, security implications (are all your plugins up2date?), the fact the search engines often can't index the contents shown by these plugins, advertising via plugins, bad support for big screen sizes, etc. IMHO there are many good and valid reasons to reject those plugins apart from Microsoft bashing. – knweiss Jul 16 '09 at 19:04
show 2 more comments
feedback
up vote 45 down vote

Preference for Web Standards

I'm tired of relying on plugins that are controlled by one company. Want to see this page? You'll need our plugin. No, we didn't make one for your browser, because we want you to use ours, or because it's not popular enough to matter.

The advancement of HTML5, embedded video, the canvas element, and other improvements will make this kind of content possible without plugins.

Update 8/7/2009

Google has some cutting edge demos of HTML5, Javascript, Canvas and SVG at chromeexperiments.com. Seems pretty clear to me that Flash-like games are coming that don't require any plugins.

Meanwhile, one of the Mozilla guys put up a bunch of demos you can see in Firefox 3.5, demonstrating amazing new capabilities with native video in the browser, like using Javascript to modify playing video or track movement in it or dynamically insert arbitrary content.

Here's a (pre-recorded) demo with Javascript recognizing people in a video and popping up their Twitter feeds. The presenter admits it's crudely done here - based on t-shirt color I think - but it suggests some awesome possibilities, which open standards will let everyone exploit and build upon.

When this stuff is mature and cross-browser, it's going to be hard to justify using any kind of plugins for your videos or games.

link|improve this answer
When you say "this kind of content", does that mean games? – BenMaddox Jul 16 '09 at 17:18
5  
@Nathan... just a follow up... do you have Flash installed on your browser? Because, I use Silverlight in Chrome, FF & IE without problems. – Traples Jul 16 '09 at 17:41
1  
@BenMaddox, you can make games in javascript already. There are 2d and even 3d graphic engines out there for javascript. There are MSX, Amiga emulators written 100% in js as well. If you really want to write games which work in browser using plugin why settle with Silverlight? Google has O3D plugin which exposes OpenGL/DirectX to javascript. The demo is amazing as well: createdigitalmotion.com/2009/04/22/… – Maiku Mori Jul 16 '09 at 18:40
2  
Don't forget the security implications. You have to keep all your plug-ins up2date. – knweiss Jul 16 '09 at 18:54
2  
knweiss: This is proably less of a problem for Silverlight (which gets updated via Windows update) than for Flash or Java (each of which has its own update system). – Joey Aug 4 '09 at 17:04
show 6 more comments
feedback
up vote 15 down vote

Wrong question

The question isn't "why not install?" but "why install?" Why should I spend the time and tie up more hard drive space and memory? What does it offer that I can't already get?

link|improve this answer
8  
4.3MB isn't exactly sacrificing your left arm. And, one could argue, that an equivilent HTML/Javascript web app could possibly have a similar memory footprint to a nice, lightweight, managed Silverlight app. – unforgiven3 Jul 16 '09 at 17:18
10  
@unforgiven - an analogy: Why don't you buy this yellow brick? It's only $1. It's not expensive. Except yes, it is - $1 for something you don't need IS expensive, and now you've got a brick taking up space. Repeat enough times and you've filled your house. Which is why your default is "don't buy," and "mine is "don't installl." Unless there's a compelling reason. – Nathan Long Jul 16 '09 at 18:30
7  
I think the OP knows what the question is. However, the only reason to download Silverlight is to use an application that runs in Silverlight. If there is no application you want to use that runs in Silverlight, you're not going to install. If there is, you will. – Jeff Yates Jul 17 '09 at 14:30
feedback
up vote 12 down vote

Irritation / Anger

I'll add that I delayed installing it because it just irritates me that any company (not just MS) would come along and create "another Flash".

I just irritates me to the point that I don't want to download and use the product.

(Not to mention I haven't yet been in any situations where Silverlight was a requirement and I cared enough to install it).

link|improve this answer
7  
As a developer who has developed in Flex and Silverlight, there is a significant reason to "create another Flash." It's "developers, developers, developers..." For someone who already knows .NET, Silverlight is icing. – Traples Jul 16 '09 at 17:44
5  
@Traples I agree with you from a Developer's point of view. But as a user, it bugged the crap out of me that there was yet-another-plug-in to download. (Despite the fact that download/installation is pretty trivial). It's mostly a mental thing, I suppose. – anonymous coward Jul 16 '09 at 18:08
feedback
up vote 12 down vote

FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. If it's from Microsoft "it must be stupid." That, or they don't see a real demand to install "yet another" thing. I'm not even sure if I have silverlight installed - I think I do though. Flash is still the czar online as far as I know. Give it time, they will have to come around.

update: After purchasing a subscription to Netflix, I now have silverlight installed to view movies instantly.

link|improve this answer
It's not that it must be stupid, it's that it must be evil. :) – Nathan Long Jul 16 '09 at 22:40
At least Silverlight doesn't cause my video driver to crash... flash has a magical way (along with most other Adobe products) of crashing computers. But I guess that's Microsoft's fault too... – Matthew Whited Aug 7 '09 at 13:40
feedback
up vote 8 down vote

Flash has such ubiquity that it's probably not considered an optional install for most users. However, many people have a resistance to installing browser plugins in general. It's just not very webby.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 7 down vote

It doesn't work well in operating systems other than Windows. I know it works on Windows and probably works on MAC OSX, but it doesn't work any version of Linux. I know that's one reason why I won't support it. Also as someone else has mentioned, it doesn't conform to standards (but then again flash doesn't either). I think if it worked well in most operating systems more people would install it.

Flash doesn't work well in all operating system (Linux mainly) but at least it works. The potential audience for flash is much higher than silverlight.

link|improve this answer
every operating system is too broad. The closer you look the more tiny and niche products you see. – Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Aug 7 '09 at 12:17
Flash 1996 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash Silverlight 2007 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlight ... wonder why Flash has a larger user base – Matthew Whited Aug 7 '09 at 13:43
Updated based on comments. – scheibk Aug 7 '09 at 14:02
feedback
up vote 6 down vote

Too much fancy, not enough useful

I don't think I've ever visited a site with Flash-based navigation that was easier to use than HTML sites are. And they're almost always slower.

Silverlight, to me, promises to be another flavor of that. The only time I appreciate Flash is for videos (and HTML5 will probably make that obselete) and games. Even in those cases, Silverlight is just redundant - it's not filling an unfilled niche, but competing with something that's already good enough for me.

link|improve this answer
I used it for games, which I think is an appropriate use of the technology. – BenMaddox Jul 16 '09 at 17:17
4  
I would say it does fill an unfilled niche - a way of producing rich Internet applications with known tools rather than learning yet another language. if you already know .NET and C#, Silverlight is excellent. – Jeff Yates Jul 16 '09 at 17:25
4  
@Jeff Yates - understandable. But what's the unfilled niche for the audience? – Nathan Long Jul 16 '09 at 18:32
@BenMaddox - that's quite appropriate, yes. My reaction here is to the sites that use it for navigation. – Nathan Long Aug 7 '09 at 18:37
feedback
up vote 6 down vote

From the perspective here, it appears to be mostly down to ignorance and prejudice (as others have stated). There are those who are ignorant of what it is and does, believing that they already know and others have prejudiced views of Microsoft and everything they do. For the more general public, I imagine it's more likely because there is just no compelling reason.

As it stands right now, Silverlight is a god-send for those who want to develop Rich Internet Applications (RIA) without buying expensive tools or learning a new language. Silverlight uses known .NET concepts to the extent that source code can quite often be shared between desktop applications and Silverlight applications. It is this aspect of Silverlight that is compelling and it will only be through developers taking advantage of this by creating must-have applications that consumers will be convinced to download and use it.

Of course, developers must have an audience and that's where the cross-platform shortcomings have a big impact. However, I believe those shortcomings will be more effectively addressed soon, making Silverlight more viable, and as Microsoft partners with sites like Netflix, Silverlight should become more widely used. I believe it is currently installed on around 30% of systems, which is not close to Flash at 95% but it's certainly nothing to be sniffed at.

With all that said, as some have pointed out, the days of browser plug-ins like Flash and Silverlight may well be numbered except in some domain-specific areas as we move to a more open set of standards for defining rich content. Hopefully, the likes of Flash and Silverlight will eventually become programming models for such open standards, allowing us to use the tools that are familiar to produce the content we want without worrying about which user has which system, browser, and plug-in.

For consumers, the reason to download Silverlight is to access the Silverlight application that you otherwise couldn't. If you don't need that application, you don't need Silverlight. Simple as that.

link|improve this answer
+1 (Since I reached my daily limit) – Diago Jul 16 '09 at 18:03
It's not just ignorance and prejudice. See this? superuser.com/questions/20972/… We, as users, don't need yet another platform-centric technology to worry about. – nagul Aug 13 '09 at 14:56
@Nagul: It's not what I'd call platform-centric just because it lags in supporting Linux. It supports Windows and MacOS just fine and last time I checked, they weren't one platform. – Jeff Yates Aug 14 '09 at 12:41
"From the perspective here, it appears to be mostly down to ignorance and prejudice (as others have stated)." -1, that's not why I've delayed installing up until now. Gorilla Sandwich and anonymous coward are right on the money. – trolle3000 Nov 3 '10 at 20:54
feedback
up vote 6 down vote

I don't want yet another plugin. Nothing against MS or Silverlight, but I'm not installing that thing until I absolutely have to. (Just like I won't install any other plugins until I have to). More plugins means more things to go wrong, and more possibilities for security related bugs.

If Silverlight eventually hits a critical mass, I'll have to install it, but until that day, I'm not gonna bother.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 4 down vote

Laziness. For a lot of plug-ins, you get redirected to another site, maybe have to register, you have to download something, wait for it to finish, go through an installation process, and restart your browser. If you've already got several tabs open all that adds up to being a big pain.

Is Silverlight's installation process as long as I describe in the paragraph above? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm too lazy to find out. That's kind of the point I'm trying to make - I'm so jaded by plug-in installs that I'll probably never bother finding out. I'm more likely to just hop over to YouTube and seeing if whatever I wanted to watch in Silverlight is available there.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 3 down vote

Those people you mentioned probably wouldn't install any kind of browser plugin. People don't like to install new software, especially for a web application. Of course there are some other people who dislike Microsoft, or have some other reasons against it.

But as far as I know, Silverlight 1 is distributed thru Windows Update, so this might be not a huge problem.

link|improve this answer
Interesting. However, I meant Silverlight 2 or 3. – BenMaddox Jul 16 '09 at 16:33
Funnily enough, neither my Mac nor Linux box installs Windows Updates by default. ;) – Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Aug 7 '09 at 12:16
@tkadlubo: Yeah, and you can use Silverlight 2/3 under Linux and Mac... Of course :) – KovBal Aug 10 '09 at 18:43
feedback
up vote 2 down vote

If your demographic crowd was online casual gamers, and they knew what Silverlight was, they probably weren't your target demographic.

link|improve this answer
I'm afraid I don't see how that answers the question. Could you clarify? – BenMaddox Jul 16 '09 at 16:37
2  
Casual flash gamers aren't programmers or technology geeks. They're just there for tower defense. If you something interesting, some plugin won't be much of a barrier. See: how browser malware spreads. – Factor Mystic Jul 16 '09 at 17:22
Thanks for the additional information. – BenMaddox Jul 16 '09 at 18:13
feedback
up vote 2 down vote

There just isn't a need for it, very few websites are using Silverlight. Actually the only web site I've ever seen using Silverlight was the Bejing Olympics site last year, that's it.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 2 down vote

It might be the same reason why my dad doesn't want to start using any website that he has to create an account for. It's too much hassle to get it to work for the reward that they get. Would they install silverlight if youtube were using it?

link|improve this answer
bugmenot is great for this – Larry Aug 7 '09 at 13:49
feedback
up vote 2 down vote

because it simply ignores Linux...

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

In my (overly) security-conscious org, everybody's a lowly User. So for us, it's not a matter of why it's not installed, but rather it's not possible to install it without admin rights.

Looking beyond that, I like SL and would not hesitate to install the plugin and advise others to do the same. Except maybe for my mom, who's still on dial-up...

link|improve this answer
The question was just for those with admin rights. Good point, but I already assumed that was a valid reason. – BenMaddox Jul 16 '09 at 17:58
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

RISK

Installing any software is a risk, how is a normal user meant to know that.

  • Silverlight is in fact safe
  • Silverlight does come from Microsoft
  • That they are getting the real Silverlight not a worm
  • That they will not be told of by their informal IT support person (husband) for installing yet more software that slows down the PC?

Flash has been about for longer than most people have had PCs, so it does not scare them.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

Silverlight runs in all major browsers, and those running on Mac OS. I think the Major browsers need to install it as a default, including Flash. Doms already by default support things like Javascript, is HTML 5 next? You get these things like it or not.

Some folks, not the anti-Microsoft fanatics, do have trouble doing the everyday things like driving a car, screwing in a light blub, or installing a plug-in. Why not an alternative to Flash, some competition, richer internet applications?

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

does not run under windows 2000

link|improve this answer
Yes... the fact it doesn't work on a 10 year old OS is a major factor... for that matter why doesn't it work on 9x or even 3.1 – Matthew Whited Aug 7 '09 at 13:48
Yes it does. Officially only for IE6, but apparently works in Firefox and Safari en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – TRS-80 Aug 7 '09 at 16:09
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

I only browse the web using an iPad, so I don't have a choice. Also, we shouldn't be promoting use of technologies like this, focus on standard based design.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

because i can go fine without it and actually anyone should. there is yet no killer-app for silverlight, but what is the game you made?

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

a) I don't trust Microsoft (e.g. will it change my cookie settings - and yes, I've had this)

b) I don't want to install unnecessary software (see yellow brick for $1 analogy - touche, Nathan!)

c) Adequate resources (such as Flash) render Silverlight unnecessary.

It SERIOUSLY irritates me that to view something basic, I have to install yet another component. Great way to turn me off your product!

link|improve this answer
feedback

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.