Slashdot Mirror


Windows Azure Offers Developers Iron-Clad Lock-in

snydeq writes "Microsoft's move to the cloud is certain to create a whole new kind of developer partner, Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister writes. But as much as Microsoft ISVs will likely go along with the shift to Windows Azure to keep revenue streams going, the kind of lock-in they will experience will be worlds away from what they face today. Rather than being able to ignore the new version of a key framework, developers will have no other option than to update their code to suit Microsoft's latest platform. That kind of lock-in will leave customers in the lurch, subject to their vendors' bottom lines, as ISVs that can't afford to rework code to keep up with Microsoft's latest platform will begin dropping services, and customers will have little choice but to accept the new terms of service their vendors send along."

4 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So that explains.. by Plekto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can't imagine customers putting up with this sort of thing for very long, especially in a business environment.

    Oops - you didn't pay... your entire business goes dead.

    Open source never looked so good.

    (and apparently the new Linux version just out shows how the gap is rapidly shrinking)

  2. Re:Don't worry, Miguel will fix it by Rayban · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We won't see v1.0 until Microsoft releases Azure v2.0, though.

    --
    æeee!
  3. Windows Azure Offers Developers Iron-Clad Lock-in by iznogud · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... as opposed to, say, Google App Engine.

  4. Exactly like OS X. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm usually the first to bash Microsoft. I'm usually the last to defend them. I do think they deserve every bit of flame they get.

    But this is just getting stupid...

    Apple did exactly the same thing with OS X. I'm talking about the initial launch -- OS X was a completely backwards-incompatible change from OS 9. In fact, there were major architectural changes -- like the introduction of such modern features as protected memory -- which would have made it pretty much impossible to maintain pure backwards compatibility and do everything they wanted to do.

    So they said "fuck it", switched to a completely different architecture, and wrote an emulation/virtualization system called Classic.

    One thing which I know I've heard described for Windows 7 was the ability to run an older version (like Vista) in a virtual machine. You know, kind of like Classic. The only difference would be if Microsoft wanted to charge you for the license -- and I hope they aren't that stupid.

    I (and others) have frequently disparaged Microsoft for their bloated, crufty, undocumented (or under-documented, or mis-documented), and downright weird APIs. I know that before I heard about this change (which isn't news, by the way, it's been on Slashdot before), I figured I would do exactly the same thing if I was in Microsoft's shoes. Don't even try to support the old APIs -- just start entirely from scratch, build a compatibility layer, and tell people to upgrade.

    One more thing, and then I'm done: What the fuck does this have to do with lock-in? What, did you think Win32 was open? It's only portable thanks to Wine, and Wine never has, never will, never can catch up and support every single app.

    If you're going to be locked in anyway, why not be locked into something newer and (presumably) cleaner?

    If it's not clean, that's another argument. But this strategy is not about lock-in.

    End rant.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!