can you install microsoft silverlight on ipad2?

Can't be done.

It would be up to Microsoft to make silverlight for iOS.

They have not done so.

Actually, that's not entirely true.

Apple made a policy change with iOS 4.0 that expressly forbade any kind of interpreted language or virtual machine on iOS devices (other than ones they themselves wrote, of course). While it's generally agreed that this was a direct shot at Adobe Flash, it had the side effect of taking out Silverlight and Java.

Worse, they also added a requirement that any app MUST be written in ObjC and compile to native code. That took out .Net and Mono (the open source version of .Net). The Mono group had already released a "Mono for iOS" which embedded a lightweight version of the .Net VM into the app to run .Net IL code (Silverlight is a subset of .Net), and they had also developed a .Net IL to native translator which would have gotten past the 'no interpreted languages' restriction. The 'must be written in ObjC' restriction put the final nail in the coffin.

So, no - it's not a question of Microsoft getting around to doing it. They've had a MacOS version of both the full .Net and Silverlight from day one - and Mono supports both platforms as well and iOS is essentially a stripped down version of MacOS - so Silverlight for iOS already exists (or is close).

It's Apple that's getting in the way.

Actually, that's not entirely true.

Yes, it is entirely true.

It is up to MS (or a licensee) to adapt Silverlight for iOS.

And you do realize that Apple changed the restrictions you mentioned, back in September 2010?

Silverlight is a system, not an app - inherent in it is the fact that it will require an interpreter, or a local compiler of some sort. The only way Microsoft can make Silverlight work on iOS isn't as much an 'adaptation' as 'a complete redesign and implementation in a way that makes it into something entirely other than what it is now'. More to the point, to comply, it would end up being a far more rigid development system or it would be entirely unusuable. There really IS no way to 'adapt' Silverlight to iOS in any way that's meaningful.

And you're kind of playing a semantic game here. In the most literal of senses, Apple doesn't have to do anything for anyone (except where required by law) and so yes, everyone else has to accomodate Apple. BUT, by the same token, Apple's arbitrary rules impact other company's decision making process and determines the cost-effectivity of taking on a project.

If Apple removed the 'no interpreter' rule, then Microsoft could have Silverlight on iOS in a second. They already have a version for MacOS - they've made versions since Silverlight 1. Since trying to make Silverlight work WITHOUT an interpreter or a local compiler is very difficult and would essentially cripple Silverlight to the point of being unusable, there really isn't a point in doing it. That's directly because of a decision Apple made.

Your implication is that it's simply a choice by Microsoft to 'not support' iOS and thus it's their fault. That's simply not the case, as shown by the fact that they've been writing Silverlight for MacOS for since the first version and want to port it to iOS. Apple's rigidity and often capricious rule changes are the problem here, not Microsoft.

And yes, I'm aware of the rule changes in Sept 2010. They're not enough to make Silverlight possible. The short version is that any change that renders Flash unacceptable also takes out Silverlight.

Your implication is that it's simply a choice by Microsoft to 'not support' iOS and thus it's their fault. That's simply not the case,

Your entire post stated just the opposite.

They made a choice (according to you) to not support it because it's too much work, to expensive, cost effectivity, no way to adapt it that is meaningful, very difficult, etc.

Regardless, it is not available on iOS and it would be up to MS to make it work.

This is absolutely 100% not correct. Apple blocked browser plug-ins ... Flash is a browser plug-in - blocked, Silverlight 4 is a browser plug-in ... this is not Microsoft's problem, this IS APPLE blocking a plug-in.

But to further help you folks understand, Silverlight 4 runs just fine on OSX under Safari ... soooooo, it's clearly Apple doing the blocking on iOS and NOT Microsoft's fault at all. Silverlight would work just fine on iOS Safari just as it does on OSX, but APPLE block it ... as in preventing the plug-in from installing.

The Silverlight 4 plug-in is actually very small, about 6MB (a lot smaller than Flash). It's a very powerful plug-in that can work with Video files/audio/streams transformation etc. etc. Apple block the plug-in because it would compete against their business interests. It's a tricky subject, but I think somewhere along this path, it will end up in court with lots of lawyers feeding of the case for a long time.

Personally I think it's bad decision by Apple and makes no sense why they just block on iOS (Mobile) but not on OSX ... and that is what will ultimatley get them in the end if this blocking approach does go thru our legal system. Even more so if Microsoft take on the position that Apple are preventing them from installing IE lite on iOS ... since the courts told Microsoft they could "lockout" browsers many years ... so what goes around comes around and I don't think Apple can retain this position for much longer.

Rob

You are incorrect. There isn't much else to say.

The Werewolf wrote:

Actually, that's not entirely true.

Apple made a policy change with iOS 4.0 that expressly forbade any kind of interpreted language or virtual machine on iOS devices (other than ones they themselves wrote, of course). While it's generally agreed that this was a direct shot at Adobe Flash, it had the side effect of taking out Silverlight and Java.

Worse, they also added a requirement that any app MUST be written in ObjC and compile to native code. That took out .Net and Mono (the open source version of .Net). The Mono group had already released a "Mono for iOS" which embedded a lightweight version of the .Net VM into the app to run .Net IL code (Silverlight is a subset of .Net), and they had also developed a .Net IL to native translator which would have gotten past the 'no interpreted languages' restriction. The 'must be written in ObjC' restriction put the final nail in the coffin.

So, no - it's not a question of Microsoft getting around to doing it. They've had a MacOS version of both the full .Net and Silverlight from day one - and Mono supports both platforms as well and iOS is essentially a stripped down version of MacOS - so Silverlight for iOS already exists (or is close).

It's Apple that's getting in the way.

So, do Microsoft make Silverlight for IOS or are you merely confirming Philly's statement that it can't be done?

SL runs just fine .... Flash runs just fine .... in Safari under OS X.

So what?

They're both resource hogs, with the difference being that on a decent OS X machine you at least have a chance of them not dragging your whole system into the slow lane should you decide to install and use them.

That's not true, or at least substantially less true, for iOS, and that's why they're not available ... or blocked, or not allowed or not developed by (x) or however you want to feather your own opinions into the basic statement ... here.

Bottom line: Silverlight is not available on iOS platforms and is not likely to be any time soon. Frankly, from one who's been in these forums from the first days of iPad, there simply is not a huge demand for it.

Whether or not it's available on some or all Android machines is something you might look into.

I'm sorry but you folks don't seem to understand what and how a Browser works and how Browser plug-ins work.

Safari is a browser, it's an application that runs on iOS. Safari also runs on OSX. Silverlight is a plug-in, it REQUIRES a Browser in order to function.

It's not a resource hog at all and does not use up any resource when it's not being used -- and SL is certainly considerably smaller and more efficient than the QuickTime plug-in that Microsoft does NOT block on IE. SL isn't a service, it's a plug-in and only executes when told to do some by a standard HTML call.

But again, why NOT provide the end user the option to block or NOT block plug-ins just like every other Browser that supports those options?

As far as demand, there has always been a HIGH level of demand for plug-in support that isn't Apple Exclusive. People have wanted Flash for a long time and I feel sorry for all those NetFlix folks that thought they could stream movies to their iPad but can't because Apple block Silverlight which is what NetFlix uses. Hmmm ... let me see, oh yeah ... why would you want NetFlix when you have Apple TV right? Well, it's "choices" and competition ... take away competition and you have a monopoly. In the US, any actions taken by monopolies to limit competition is illegal ... just as Microsoft danced on the fine line by forcing IE to be part of the OS (and lost), so now it's Apple's turn ... lets see what the Federal Government ends up doing about this.

I can't understand why anyone would want to debate otherwise, unless of course you folks wanting to block plug-ins and NOT provide the end user with options ... are ... hmmm, Apple Employees?

Thanks for pointing out what a browser is, I'll be able to sleep all the more soundly now that your condescension has illuminated the issue.

should be done by the end of this year. more info here

AppleFaner wrote:

should be done by the end of this year. more info here

Need to read the article carefully, SL5 will still be blocked by iOS ... I have the Beta installed on my development PC and plan to migrate my SL4 code over to SL5 ... should be as simple as changing the HTML Object tag and setting param name "minRuntimeVersion" = "5.0.x" (whatever final build version is). But I SL5 will still be blocked on iOS ... and I'm certain SL5 OOB mode (Out of Browser) will definitely not work on iOS.

Csound1, not trying to be condescending, I'm a software engineer, this is what I do for a living. People seem to think SL is some huge framework that lives on their computer, it's not, it's just a plug-in and a small (6MB) one at that. People confuse SL with .NET framework -- SL is missing HUGE chunks of functionality in regards to .NET framework - SqlClient (aka no database server direct access, everything has to be thru web services) is one such assembly.

Ironically Windows 8 IE10 also blocks plug-ins by default, HOWEVER, the user is provided the option to "allow plugins" via selecting "Desktop" mode. But the real fun and games start when IE10 already has SL5 support code as part of the browser application so it's no longer a "plug-in". The reality is that it's all just code, integrated or plug-in or service or whatever you want to execute it's thread(s) from ... the blocking game never succeeds, never has and never will ... Apple are just trying to buy market penetration time. But the last time I was in an Apple store and there huge section for iPad2 demo units was pretty much people free as most folks were looking at iMac, MacBook, Air ... not iPads and not iPhones. So it appears the wave of touch screen interest is about crested or soon to be crested and level out.

Rob A. wrote:

So it appears the wave of touch screen interest is about crested or soon to be crested and level out.

Thank FRIGGING GOD!, I loath touchscreen devices, although I can see the "halo effect" as it allows people to buy the low performance, "I need to use my fingers" idiot devices to finally upgrade to a real computer.