I am not a web developer but I hear developing anything in flash sucks. Who knows, maybe sliverlight has a better API? Better framework? Easier to click, drag and drool something together?

All I know is that things like this get put together from the lowest bidder, and perhaps that lowest bidder had a deal or some guy running that company thought that silverlight was the next big thing?

It is all business, and has very little to do with actual technology sometimes.

If the back end is running Microsoft's IIS7 server, then Silverlight can stream the video to iPhones via the HTML5 <video> tag. Maybe that was a reason?

Presumably, spoofing the UserAgent would allow desktop browsers to get the HTML5 version too.

Creating a Flash applet requires hiring someone who knows Flash.
Building a Silverlight applet requires hiring someone who can code in VB.net, C#.net, or C++.net. Guess which category has the most people?
Also, Flash is somewhat limited. Silverlight is virtually running a true executable program inside the browser based on the .NET framework, which allows a huge array of functionality. Access to databases, threading, etc. There are tighter permissions in access to the host computer, but running a Silverlight app really is just like running a normal application inside a browser.
Flash is more oriented towards being an integral piece of a webpage, not a standalone app.
The Flash development environment is a lot more complicated, and in many ways acts more like a video editor. Silverlight apps can be created right inside Visual Studio where coders write all their other applications, so the learning curve is smaller.

Silverlight runs just fine in Safari on my Mac.

Runs in Safari on my MBP (10.6.2) machine as well, I discovered. I guess I was really just ready to carp about the incredibly tight commercial control of what are supposed to be amateur sports.CTV paid a gazillion bucks for rights (as did NBC), and both are much more interested in ad revenue than in viewer convenience. I must confess too that the newspapers are no better.

I say this, however, as a person with very little interest in the Olympics any more. They have become insufferably commercial, there are never-ending doping scandals, the IOC are a bunch of world-hopping fat cats, I don't trust the judging, ... I could go on.

I was thinking about the streaming video problem a few days ago (when I couldn't see the hockey game online from CTV because I was in the US).

Are there any examples of a streaming service that works without Flash OR Silverlight across Mac/Windows/Safari/IE/Firefox that does NOT use a proprietary service/plugin?

Apple's streaming, when they did it, require QuickTime, so that is not that much different than Silverlight.

HTML5 does not require proprietary plugins, which is why those that have them (Adobe) are fighting against it while claiming that they aren't. Sort of like health insurance companies and health reform.

Yes, but if you had to build an Olympic streaming site that was completed LAST YEAR, is HTML5 realistic. Heck, is HTML5 realistic right now?

I do realize that HTML5 is the way to do in the future, but how do you do it right now?

Wrong question. What you do is start using HTML5 and then give polite but persistent notices pushing users that can't make use of it to browsers that can. If you don't, then you'll be stuck with old technology (remember the floppy disc?) for many years.

So how would you have done the Olympic streaming site?

HTML5. I thought I made that clear.

Well for sure that would never have been accepted as the winning design. I'm nearly positive the requirements were that it had to work on 90% of browsers, which HTML5 fails, right?

From what I can tell here: http://a.deveria.com/caniuse/#agents...,pr,cr,wd,ietf and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...engines_(HTML5) then HTML is not a good choice for a highly visible and trafficked site.

Am I missing something?

This is a horrible thing to even contemplate requiring, especially at a time when installing another browser is just a click away. Whoever proposed such a requirement should be punished for even suggesting it.
Edit: To deliberately choose mediocrity by sticking with outdated, proprietary capabilities is contrary to the Olympic ideal of striving to be stronger, faster, greater.

You're missing the fact that at least 4 cross platform browsers can play HTML5 video, and at least one of the ones that don't are responsible for causing problems for developers where they have to develop two versions of many things.

You are right, but let me add another layer of what goes on behind the scenes. Director, executive, manager, whomever is in charge of making something works and is in a management position goes here we bought this IT staff, now make it work. A department head will say, hey we got money to spend and we need this, so go get this and make it work. They hardly ever consult IT, and often when they do they disregard what IT says to make it happen.

Then IT says, hey management, we could really use this to work with all the technology you bought and are making us support for you. Management replies, we don't have the budget for that.

So, it can go both ways, and is usually 9 times out of 10 a business decision over a technical decision. My buddy works IT for a large bank. Their management wants minimal software and all computers locked down as tight as possible. Their tiny little windows image is like 500 megs total, and their machines can do nothing but run the programs that are installed, nothing else. They wanted to migrate some back end technology to make this process more efficient, and management said nope, no budget for it, just make it work.

I know about this at my school. No personal computers that don't have an antivirus because of network distribution. How is a Windows program supposed to run on a Mac? (Not Parallels or Fusion; you'd know) So it can't go around the network. Deuueh…

CrossOver API can run windows Apps. It is essentially a lot like the WINE project.

But a program can't autorun without your knowing. It can't redistribute itself on the network for that; you would know as Parallels/CrosssOver/Fusion/Q… would launch.

Well to be honest self replicating viruses are pretty darn rare these days even on Windows machines. Most of them have moved into phishing or social engineering where the user gives permission for it to install itself. Then there are some that will try to attach themselves to email attachments, but to be honest most spam and firewalls catch those. Anytime an email comes to me that has been altered my firewall spam guard usually catches it and deletes it. Now, if you zipped the virus up and emailed it as an attachment it would go through but it would require the end user to extract it and run it. Those types of attacks you can't really defend against because of the human element. You have to train your users to use smart practices.

I haven't seen a mass self replicating virus in a long time, and the ones I did get to experience were email based. I haven't really seen any just attach itself to a file share and then go to town on a bunch of client machines on a network.

Great article about video on the web: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292