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."

Comments

Vuze?

[Jrabbit05]

I still think that name looks way to close to Vuze/Azureus. Maybe its going to change post launch?

Re:Vuze?

[sweet_petunias_full_]

So it's OK for MS to remove the "us" at the end of Azureus to make Azure and everybody should be OK with that, but if somebody tries to replace the W in windows with an L to make Lindows, everyone should be up in arms about that?

In both cases, it seems like it has much more to do with WHO owns the trademark than with any sharply objective dividing line of legal fairness.

Re:Vuze?

[Attila Dimedici]

So it's OK for MS to remove the "us" at the end of Azureus to make Azure and everybody should be OK with that, but if somebody tries to replace the W in windows with an L to make Lindows, everyone should be up in arms about that?

In both cases, it seems like it has much more to do with WHO owns the trademark than with any sharply objective dividing line of legal fairness.

Microsoft did not "remove the 'us' from Azureus". Azure is a word already.
More importantly MS is not selling a product called "Azure", they have given a product they are developing the code name "Azure". When they actually release the product if they call it Azure, then it might be time to discuss this.

Re:Vuze?

[Orion Blastar]

When I think of Windows Azure, I tend to think of This Game.

Bill Gates and Microsoft are part of the New Alliance, and put Azure tattoos on the developers so that they can secretly control them and lock them into working for the New Alliance.

Re:Vuze?

[rtb61]

Azure has far more to do with investors than it does with developers. It is all about creating the illusion of long term high profit margin revenue, that can be obtained by lock in style business practices. As M$ is struggling with both Vista and Office 2007, they need something more than the poor fiscal performance of xbox and the disaster of MSN. Google finds itself in a similar problem with regard to high share price limited growth opportunities in search and the inevitable break up of that market.

Crippled cloud solves their fiscal desires but really does nothing for the majority of the market, both of them are really lathering up the hype, advertising as news articles popping up all over the place especially in mass media, all trying to create a demand that doesn't really exist.

Realistically in tight economic times development will stagnate, companies will stick with what they have for as long as they can and only change when they are forced too and then that change will be targeted at long term solutions, where they have the greatest control over outlays and future investment cycles.

Re:Vuze?

[mcrbids]

Realistically in tight economic times development will stagnate, companies will stick with what they have for as long as they can and only change when they are forced too and then that change will be targeted at long term solutions, where they have the greatest control over outlays and future investment cycles.

Really? Because that's not the trend I'm seeing - at all.

As a hosted application provider, I'm finding our clients squeezing their belts, left, right, and center. They're nervous, they're scared, they're jumpy. And it seems that the more jumpy and scared they get, the more contracts we are signing, left, right and center!

See, our product is designed to cut costs by automating compliance to legal requirements. It's a hosted application, and many of our new contracts view us as a way to eliminate the cost of maintaining home-brew stuff that's low quality and costly to maintain. Our products, on the other hand, are comprehensive, well funded, and reasonably priced.

I guess you could say that there is some lock-in with our product, because although we don't want to hold anybody hostage, we're not giving away our source code, either. We certainly wouldn't hesitate to turn over our client's data on demand, (they can click-to-download most of it without ever consulting us) but our clients aren't generally the coding type, and the marketplace for our wares is almost a niche.

I believe that a good business is truly a relationship between the business and its customers. When the business truly considers the needs of its potential customers, and works to meet those needs in an efficient, professional, and competent manner, the customers really won't mind returning the favor. In our case, we almost let our customers outsource their worries to us, and we work hard to make sure that we deliver.

The result? Rapid growth, and customers who rave!

Re:Vuze?

[Fritz the CopyCat]

...compared to "Azureus" (which is a made up word)...

Azureus is not a made-up word; it comes from dendrobates azureus--the Latin name of the blue poison dart frog--which serves as the program's logo.

No serious enterprise customers will adopt this

[morgan_greywolf]

Constantly locked in to a upgrade path? No, way. No way will anyone go for this for anything real.

Re:No serious enterprise customers will adopt this

[peragrin]

never underestimate human stupidity. after all bush got elected twice.

Re:No serious enterprise customers will adopt this

[morgan_greywolf]

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -- Einstein

Yeah, okay, maybe you're right. ;)

Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

In a world with new wars, pandemics, food crises, and economic meltdowns, it is good to know that the morals of one company have stayed the same. Microsoft is our rock in these crazy times.

I'll host MY applications

[Philip K Dickhead]

in a cloud of dreams by Richard Stallman!

Don't worry, Miguel will fix it

[Wesley Felter]

I'm sure he's already started on an open-source Mono-based Azure clone.

Re:Don't worry, Miguel will fix it

[Rayban]

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

Re:Don't worry, Miguel will fix it

[ricegf]

I attended PDC this year. Miguel gave a talk about / demo of Mono and its future on Wednesday evening to an enthusiastic standing-room only audience. At one point, a Microsoft leader in the back (couldn't see who it was) yelled out, "Microsoft loves Mono!".

More interesting was "The Future of C#" talk earlier in the week, where the future of C# was revealed to be... Python. No kidding. C# 4.0 will include a static type of "dynamic" (the jokes just write themselves), which uses Jim Hugunin's (of Jython / IronPython fame) Dynamic Library Runtime (DLR) to do duck typing et. al. C# 5.0 virtualizes the C# compiler so that an executing C# program can compile and execute C# code on the fly. I thought the C# developers were going to break their hands in wild applause as the speaker demonstrated a command line written in a prototype C# 5.0 from which statements executed dynamically - like you get when you type "python" at a command prompt. It was a bit surreal; these guys need to get out more. :-)

The punch line is that Miguel demonstrated the use of the DLR and compiler virtualization in the current version of Mono.

I know his reputation isn't sterling in these parts, but there's certainly nothing wrong with his coding skill. His was also one of the most entertaining talks at PDC (and the only one with the demos hosted on Linux).

Re:Don't worry, Miguel will fix it

[ebydav]

So that would be Monure?

So that explains..

[nurb432]

Those dark clouds i saw on the way home.

Re:So that explains..

[Plekto]

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)

Re:Like iPhone

[zmjjmz]

The Android allows you to download applications from the web, not jut the marketplace.

Re:Like iPhone

[Pollardito]

I don't believe the iPhone yet requires you to apply every latest patch to your phone in order to stay on the network, so it is different because users of your app have the choice to not patch if patching breaks your app. The main theme of the article is that it's not the users' choice whether the cloud gets updated, it will get updated if and when the cloud maintainer is ready to update it (though he doesn't ever mention things like deprecated methods that are frequently used to ensure backwards compatibility) and that maintainer is not you the cloud application developer nor your client the cloud application user.

The author says at the end that this same situation exists with every other cloud computing host though, and that's a part of the article that should have made it into the Slashdot summary

Frameworks?

[mrsteveman1]

So why is there any reason to believe MS won't provide backward compatibility on their cloud stuff? That's what they do on the desktop....

No i didn't RTFA, its a tradition i didn't want to break with.

so what?

[thermian]

This is what Microsoft do. Its what they've done for decades, and it has made them hundreds of billions of dollars. The message they get from this is that customers don't mind their lock in, provided they get stuff that works. Therefore they don't see what they do as being wrong. If indeed it is wrong. I'm not so sure anymore.

Microsoft software works, and usually works pretty well (Not including that heap of poo that is Vista, oh gods I hate that). Bottom line? Most companies buy Microsoft solutions, and you would be amazed how many still don't even know what Open Source is.

They will continue to do so until Open Source software gets marketing as aggressive as that employed by Microsoft. It ain't about code/product quality boys and girls, its about your sales force. IBM learned this lesson early on. Microsoft learned it too, but Open Source is still laboring under the false impression that just having better code is enough.

It isn't, trust me on this.

Re:so what?

[thermian]

What marketing? Microsoft didn't have to market until recently because everyone already knew about their products, and most of them were already customers.

Eh? I'm guessing you've never worked in IT. Its hard to find an IT company more focused on marketing than Microsoft.

Re:so what?

[grahamd0]

Microsoft actively markets to enterprise customers, PC manufacturers and developers, and always has.

They haven't marketed extensively to home users because they haven't had to. If you have Windows at work, all the programs you want to use are written for it, and it comes installed by default on any new PC, why would you even explore the possibility of getting something else?

Even now, most people don't even realize there are alternatives.

Re:so what?

[chebucto]

I'm guessing he was born sometime around or after 1990. You'd have to have lived in a cave to have missed the Windows 95 marketing (remember how many 'news' stories there were about them buying 'start me up'? Wasn't Gates on Letterman?). They haven't had to do much marketing since Windows 98, granted, because by _that_ point they'd established their ~95% market share.

Re:so what?

[dpastern]

No, you're wrong. The reason why Microsoft is dominant, especially in the office is simply because MS Office has become dominant. Every office uses it. 3rd party applications are not 100% compliant, and never will be. When MS Office is no longer the de facto standard, then things will change.

I had high hopes for ODF, until it was politically killed by deliberately political interference in the state of Massachusetts. Then there was the deliberate, and illegal interference at the ISO voting (and no government seems to be pulling aside their local ISO group and arresting them for falsities - go figure). It's amazing what shit loads of money and heavy ties to political figures can do.

Dave

Windows Azure Offers Developers Iron-Clad Lock-in

[iznogud]

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

a whole lot if FUD

[txoof]

This sounds like a whole lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt. developers are already subject to upgrading software as patches emerge. Business clients are likely to push out security and operability patches as they are released. They will demand the same level of service they receive now with Azure if the patches break their apps. Remember, new != scarry; new==different.

Well...

[jd]

One could look at this in one of two ways. The first way is the line taken by the summary writer, that it's doom, gloom and disaster. In practice, this is actually the most likely scenario, as the alternative I'm going to suggest has never been seriously adopted by software vendors yet.

And now for that alternative! Writing code correctly. (Ooooh, scary! Just right for Halloween.) Correct code does not mean "correct according to Microsoft's preferred style", it means "abstracted out, so you don't give a damn about the underlying architecture" with "vendor-specific and platform-specific details encapsulated and hidden by portability libraries and high-level languages". If you write code that will run just equally well on a Cray 2, PC compatible, Apple, SGI Indigo or a microprocessor-controlled toaster, you can afford to simply not care what Microsoft does. The portability library(s), which might be any combination of cross-platform Open Source or Commercial libraries for common stuff, provides almost total immunity from Microsoft API changes, gives you (next to) zero upgrade costs (the "actual" costs are distributed across all of the vendors tied to the library at the time AND in future) and minimizes the risks (the minimum amount of 3rd party code is changed per API change and the maximum number of arcs are tested because everyone linking into the code becomes a QA).

Since the only practical method of maintaining such a model at the pace at which Microsoft breaks^H^H^H^H^H^Hchanges things is Open Source, it will force an increase in the adoption of Open Source methods and Open Source tools. At which point, Microsoft becomes a rather expensive bit-player in the operation, in comparison to alternative clouds. Since portability libraries eliminate lock-in, as well as upgrade headaches, companies would start going with the cheaper option.

This isn't going to happen, of course. Although the tie-in with Microsoft is harming vendors, creating excess overhead and reducing reliability, PHBs won't see it that way. All they will see is that lock-in means you can Blame Somebody Else. You can't sue them, you almost certainly can't even get them to honour their service agreements or any other contracts, but so what? Having Someone Else To Blame is the cornerstone of office politics. Good decisions are not. It doesn't matter if the company sinks as a result, since the notion of "company loyalty" is seen as something "old-fashioned" and inconsequential in today's environment. You go in, you get your paycheck, you eventually move on. It's expected. So why should a manager, who has no interest beyond looking good to other managers, care about good decisions? It won't earn them any more money, it won't get them any more respect, it won't give them a promotion, and it leaves them vulnerable to back-stabbing from other managers.

Re:Well...

[fermion]

Writing good code is expensive. This is one of the reasons why MS is so popular. It allows developers to write bad code that will still runs, is still sufficiently maintainable, and does the job with minimum reliability. This is why good code, which was never really in fad to begin with, never really took off. Even with modern tools, writing good portable code is largely cost prohibitive.

This is why the PHB might not fall into this new trap. It seems that MS is trying to force good coding practices, with new fangled ideas like the MVC pattern. It may become easier to write bad code on an existing long term stable system than invest in the highly skilled, and invariably annoying people, that can write code that is so abstracted that components can be changed out on the fly. After all the MS philosophy is machines are cheaper than people, so it is better to buy more machines to run inefficient and buggy code that to pay people to write efficient and reliable code.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever taken a good look at Microsoft's frameworks, such as MFC? Abstracting that sh*t out is _hard_. Much of your design is buried in non-code proprietary "resource" files which do not provide the facilities for layering or abstraction. In Windows you can dip below the high level OO APIs and program to the lower level C libraries (Win32), that's how Qt, FLTK, and other frameworks do it. It costs you productivity, but it lets you write portable code. Most programmers aren't going to think that far ahead - they'll take the easy way which Microsoft puts front and center in their documentation and certification classes. Low level programming may not even be _possible_ in Azure; you may only get the high level "easy" APIs which prevent abstraction for portability. Then your only option is to write emulation libraries for other platforms which can run the same designs as Azure, assuming that patents and terms of service agreements don't disallow it.

Re:Like iPhone

[lysergic.acid]

for starters, Android is an open platform. Android dev kits are completely free (no developer program membership fee). and Google's distribution agreement, which is far less draconian, only applies if you want to distribute your application through Google. but developers are free to distribute their application themselves.

That's the very reason we abandoned Windows

[HangingChad]

Because you spend so much time serving the Microsoft machine. Not just licensing, product activation and the time and resources that takes, but the constant upgrade cycles, new languages, new versions of the frameworks, security patches that break things...it's all freaking insane.

We scrapped all that. Servers, desktops, dev tools, everything and migrated our development environment and desktops to open source. We can scale for the cost of hardware, our dev tools are simple, don't take all day to install and don't hog all your system resources. We use a lot of command line and prefer it. While you're still installing VisualStudio and getting through registration, we're already working.

Our ROI is off the scale, we have more cash, spend more time actually working and we're turning out systems in time frames that would be the envy of any development shop. We use open source in business and our business works. I came out of a big Windows shop and we blow away anything they're doing with a fraction of the personnel.

So now MS wants to take elements from several product lines, put it in a blender, then lock developers into their way of doing things. Gosh, let me think about that...no.

If Microsoft offered real value, simple licensing terms, and provided products that actually contributed to our enterprise environment without being a dickish pain in the ass, we'd probably have a place for their products in our mix. But right now, no freaking way. Anything MS touches turns to crap. Their products are slow, complicated and bloated and we get by just fine without them.

Re:Like iPhone

[postbigbang]

The fee Microsoft charges for MSDN is a pittance; that's not really an issue. Android is a different market altogether.

The telcos have their own dev market.

Oracle has its own dev market, as does Microsoft, VMWare, and dozens of others.

That doesn't mean I agree with what you have to do to get Microsoft's thunderstorm cloud, but to make it rain, you'll have to spend money and time somewhere. My preference would be in an open environment with lots of choices. But even LAMP is a committment choice-- it just has an open source concept that I personally like to live with. MSDN enforces a discipline that takes a different kind of investment with a different kind of developer and a different potential market.

There are lots of choices in this world; I'm not choosing this one for these and other reasons.

Ms is better at legacy support than anyone

[timmarhy]

this is bullcrap. MS is better than ANYONE at providing legacy support for old platforms. look at how long win32 stuck around? STILL works. backward compatability is one of the corner stones of MS's business. IMHO they can't win no matter what they do, if they break legacy support to fix things like security they end up taking heat like they have over vista, if they continue legacy support like they have been doing they take heat of lack of features and security.

This guy has just blown out a load of basless speculation and your all buying into it (any giving him page hits).

Re:Ms is better at legacy support than anyone

[plsander]

Ummm... IBM called, would like their title back.

Code written for the 1988 release of the AS/400 still runs on the current incarnations of the iSeries with no modifications. They have swapped out the processor architecture twice (at least) since that first announce.

And I expect someone from the zSeries (nee s/360) to come along and point out a date 20 years earlier...

likely developers won't be forced forward

[icepick72]

developers will have no other option than to update their code to suit Microsoft's latest platform.

Likely you'll leave your Microsoft applications running on the platform version they're developed for while Microsoft may host many platform versions side-by-side. It's not unlike Google maps where developers can choose the API version their application runs with 1.x, 2.x, etc. Microsoft might be evil but they're not stupid, and they've been creating develop tools and frameworks for a very long time. They won't alienate their developers so there's no sense to assume a fearful stance because of a Slashdot submission like this.

Re:Windows Azure Offers Developers Iron-Clad Lock-

[SanityInAnarchy]

...which has been reimplemented as open source.

It only took maybe a week after it was launched, too.

The only reason you'd be "locked in" to Google's service there is if you depend on them hosting your app for free. I call that a fair trade.

Re:Corral and flog? FUDRUCKER!

[billcopc]

Again, so-called "cloud" services are only cost-effective under certain conditions. A good sysadmin with cheap bandwidth can run circles around any hosted setup, and you get much more reliable throughput that way (if your sysadmin's any good).

Cloud computing being cheaper is a MYTH. It is billed in more granular fashion, which is great for attention-deficit developers who write the app-of-the-week, get their Digg and /. rush then fade away. Those people are not the driving force of the internet.

Is this any different than Gooogle App Engine?

[abh]

I haven't delved deep into the workings of either... but is the Azure/Microsoft lockin any different than lockin would be in writing apps for Google's App Engine?

Exactly like OS X.

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

Apple and Microsoft are like peas in a pod

[Orion Blastar]

What Apple did with OSX, Microsoft did with Vista and Azure. But as I recall OSX Classic mode couldn't run all legacy Mac programs just as Vista's Win32 Legacy mode cannot run all Legacy Windows and DOS programs.

I recall Mac OSX had the Basilisk 2 emulator to run Classic Mac 68K programs that OSX Classic mode couldn't run.

Windows Vista uses VMWare or Virtual PC to run XP and under in Vista for Legacy Windows and DOS programs.

But it is ironic that Amiga, Inc. when it wrote AmigaOS 3.1 found a way to run the old 68K and PowerPC AmigaDOS/Workbench 1.X and 2.X programs under it without too many problems, and even gave legacy rights to a group to create an open source version of AmigaOS 3.1 called AROS Amiga Research OS that can run on i386 and PowerPC systems and have built in emulation for 68K Amiga code based on UAE with their own version of Kickstart in AROS with backwards compatibility.

Amiga got it right, Microsoft and Apple didn't, for solving Legacy Software problems.

As if Google, Amazon, & Salesforce won't lock-

[healyje]

The first five of cloud experiences will be all about lock-in from all the vendors - you'd have to be an naive in the extreme to in any way single out Microsoft in that regard. Jesus, some of you folks need to get your head out of your asses for a different perspective - that same old view is starting to develop a stale odor...

If you really need < package >

[symbolset]

Slashdot has a sister site where people various open source products are presented, rated, provided and supported.

This search for "reporting" should get you started. Apparently the JasperReports reporting engine is stable and well though of, and iReports is a popular interface to it. But I haven't tried them.

Good luck.

Re:Windows Azure Offers Developers Iron-Clad Lock-

[resonantblue]

I call B.S. Please enlighten us on exactly how it has been reimplemented as open source? All of your storage is still done using Google's Big Table and the GQL query language. If you can find me the source for Big Table, please show it to me.

Am I missing something?

[zmollusc]

Unlimited broadband seems to be going away, bandwidth caps are coming in, traffic shaping is already here and Microsoft want to move the processing to remote data centres? I look forward to scanning a photograph, editing it with CloudPaint and printing it out on my local printer using the generous 9kbytes/second upstream 200kbytes downstream i get from Virgin Media. I don't think i will even bother looking at CloudVideoEditor.