Microsoft's business model in a web services world
on
Web Services
·
· Score: 1
I don't think Microsoft is as worried about a distributed computing world as the article suggests.
There are transition points along the way to a truly distributed computing world, however, that it has been worried about. In a truly distributed computing environment, every client, every desktop is a server. Who owns the desktop world today? Microsoft. That is the end-game, and Microsoft is well positioned to capitalize on it.
In the interim, however, before all the "standards" and "security" issues are worked out, server-based computing -- Larry Ellison's proclaimed NetPC -- will surface. Unfortunately, for Microsoft, this is where they are weak. Microsoft knows that there are already too many competing server platforms out there. So, it focused instead on making sure that open protocols were adopted so that any server-based products that are developed will always be compatible with its desktop client. To hedge its bets, it also pushed Passport so that even if server-based computing becomes established, it will have a piece of the pie.
When a truly distributed computing world surfaces, unless the open-source community finds a way to penetrate the desktop client, it will be a Microsoft world all over again.
Well, I guess a tolerant society is one solution. However, because it requires the power, prestige and influence of groups that own the different viewpoints to be equally balanced, it is rarely the "equilibrium" solution. Truth is, some minority somewhere is always being oppressed -- even in Amsterdam.
There is now a candidate for the highest office in Holland (please forgive my ignorance) that is advocating shutting the borders and forbidding immigration for a period of time. This candidate is expected to receive 20% of the vote in the coming election -- due primarily to the effects of 9/11 and the fact that much of the immigration is from Muslim laborers from North Africa.
From a global perspective, because there is such a large imbalance (America is the last remaining superpower) it need not promote tolerance throughout the world. Rather, it can use force and violence to bring the world viewpoint closer to its own.
Tolerance is rarely the long-term "equilibrium" solution in a world of differing viewpoints.
The statement isn't too surprising, but I think a distinction needs to be made between short-term and long-term effects.
In the years before the Internet, most of our communication was with people in conditions very similar to our own. Homogeneity breeds similar viewpoints.
In the short-term, as many different cultures and types of people begin to interact, there will be a lot of conflict as different viewpoints come across. In the long-term, though, as these viewpoints are reconciled, either through debate, conflict, or even violence, the community of shared viewpoints becomes larger, and the differences in opinion should lessen... in short, an evolution of viewpoints and cultures.
The Internet should lead to a more unified world community, but certainly not in the short-term.
I don't even accept the premise here. Hailstorm failed because the concept sucks.
Why would a central repository of my information be more convenient? I can understand if a company wants to keep a central repository of my software settings, customization preferences, interface options, and maybe even documents I create that I designate to be stored on the repository. That's about it. The only information they need about me for that is a user id, and a way to bill me.
Why do they need to know my address, favorite color, aunt's middle name, bank roll, etc.? Frankly, when it comes to transactions (and separately, interactions with the government), I prefer the bureaucracy and inconvenience of having my information stored in different places. I don't everything linked together. The bureaucratic tape has a purpose: to make sure my life and information can't be altered without due process.
The more eyes and ears that must be consulted, the better. The VISA/ credit card system is about as far as I'm willing to go.
The only real issue IMO is whether some delay is acceptable between releasing the binary and the source, particularly for betas - this seems to happen with some projects, in practice, but if the project/business goes away in the mean time, the users are left without the source.
It's even more dangerous than that. The best thing for a big companies would be to find a cheap way to enter markets they don't already dominate. What better way to do that than to release "beta" code in that market that uses open source code, with their own proprietary extensions or interface locked around it.
Then, by the time the "final" release makes it into the real world, they've had time to re-engineer the code internally, without using any GPL'd source.
It's not as much as a danger in this case because Lindows' business model is based on Linux, but we can all think of other companies that may be more aggressive.
That's absolutely true. If you want to run a business, you need to be able to make decisions of this sort, and control the quality of what makes it out of your shop.
The only problem is that it sets precedent. Microsoft would like nothing more than to co-opt the GPL. Sure, the FSF would be much more aggressive if Microsoft attempted to do the same, but Microsoft could then point to Lindow's use of the GPL in this manner to do the same thing. The point is that Lindows is making $99 off every beta release.
Admittedly, if the FSF, a private party, is lenient on enforcing the GPL, it's not the same thing as a legal precedent. However, over time, if more and more companies start using the GPL in this way, it will change the meaning of the words incorporated in the GPL. Once the meaning of those words change, it can affect other open source licenses too.
I agree that triggering an upgrade, or forcing users to remove offending code on their own is too restrictive, and against the spirit of Open Source, but... isn't this something we'll all have to accept in the web services world? Regardless of whether the service is written for Mono,.NET, or Java, we will have to become accustomed to "upgrading" to newer versions, without our consent or perhaps even knowledge.
Is there an acceptable policy we can come up with now to deal with this forthcoming issue, besides: (1) recompiling the source and having it reside on our own machines (which defeats the point of web services); (2) having multiple versions of every library available by the author for years on end?
I see this more as an issue for the Open Source community than for the proprietary platforms, since their answer is likely to be to force the upgrade, without your consent or knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Microsoft is as worried about a distributed computing world as the article suggests.
There are transition points along the way to a truly distributed computing world, however, that it has been worried about. In a truly distributed computing environment, every client, every desktop is a server. Who owns the desktop world today? Microsoft. That is the end-game, and Microsoft is well positioned to capitalize on it.
In the interim, however, before all the "standards" and "security" issues are worked out, server-based computing -- Larry Ellison's proclaimed NetPC -- will surface. Unfortunately, for Microsoft, this is where they are weak. Microsoft knows that there are already too many competing server platforms out there. So, it focused instead on making sure that open protocols were adopted so that any server-based products that are developed will always be compatible with its desktop client. To hedge its bets, it also pushed Passport so that even if server-based computing becomes established, it will have a piece of the pie.
When a truly distributed computing world surfaces, unless the open-source community finds a way to penetrate the desktop client, it will be a Microsoft world all over again.
Well, I guess a tolerant society is one solution. However, because it requires the power, prestige and influence of groups that own the different viewpoints to be equally balanced, it is rarely the "equilibrium" solution. Truth is, some minority somewhere is always being oppressed -- even in Amsterdam.
There is now a candidate for the highest office in Holland (please forgive my ignorance) that is advocating shutting the borders and forbidding immigration for a period of time. This candidate is expected to receive 20% of the vote in the coming election -- due primarily to the effects of 9/11 and the fact that much of the immigration is from Muslim laborers from North Africa.
From a global perspective, because there is such a large imbalance (America is the last remaining superpower) it need not promote tolerance throughout the world. Rather, it can use force and violence to bring the world viewpoint closer to its own.
Tolerance is rarely the long-term "equilibrium" solution in a world of differing viewpoints.
The statement isn't too surprising, but I think a distinction needs to be made between short-term and long-term effects.
... in short, an evolution of viewpoints and cultures.
In the years before the Internet, most of our communication was with people in conditions very similar to our own. Homogeneity breeds similar viewpoints.
In the short-term, as many different cultures and types of people begin to interact, there will be a lot of conflict as different viewpoints come across. In the long-term, though, as these viewpoints are reconciled, either through debate, conflict, or even violence, the community of shared viewpoints becomes larger, and the differences in opinion should lessen
The Internet should lead to a more unified world community, but certainly not in the short-term.
I don't even accept the premise here. Hailstorm failed because the concept sucks.
Why would a central repository of my information be more convenient? I can understand if a company wants to keep a central repository of my software settings, customization preferences, interface options, and maybe even documents I create that I designate to be stored on the repository. That's about it. The only information they need about me for that is a user id, and a way to bill me.
Why do they need to know my address, favorite color, aunt's middle name, bank roll, etc.? Frankly, when it comes to transactions (and separately, interactions with the government), I prefer the bureaucracy and inconvenience of having my information stored in different places. I don't everything linked together. The bureaucratic tape has a purpose: to make sure my life and information can't be altered without due process.
The more eyes and ears that must be consulted, the better. The VISA/ credit card system is about as far as I'm willing to go.
The only real issue IMO is whether some delay is acceptable between releasing the binary and the source, particularly for betas - this seems to happen with some projects, in practice, but if the project/business goes away in the mean time, the users are left without the source. It's even more dangerous than that. The best thing for a big companies would be to find a cheap way to enter markets they don't already dominate. What better way to do that than to release "beta" code in that market that uses open source code, with their own proprietary extensions or interface locked around it. Then, by the time the "final" release makes it into the real world, they've had time to re-engineer the code internally, without using any GPL'd source. It's not as much as a danger in this case because Lindows' business model is based on Linux, but we can all think of other companies that may be more aggressive.
That's absolutely true. If you want to run a business, you need to be able to make decisions of this sort, and control the quality of what makes it out of your shop.
The only problem is that it sets precedent. Microsoft would like nothing more than to co-opt the GPL. Sure, the FSF would be much more aggressive if Microsoft attempted to do the same, but Microsoft could then point to Lindow's use of the GPL in this manner to do the same thing. The point is that Lindows is making $99 off every beta release.
Admittedly, if the FSF, a private party, is lenient on enforcing the GPL, it's not the same thing as a legal precedent. However, over time, if more and more companies start using the GPL in this way, it will change the meaning of the words incorporated in the GPL. Once the meaning of those words change, it can affect other open source licenses too.
I agree that triggering an upgrade, or forcing users to remove offending code on their own is too restrictive, and against the spirit of Open Source, but ... isn't this something we'll all have to accept in the web services world? Regardless of whether the service is written for Mono, .NET, or Java, we will have to become accustomed to "upgrading" to newer versions, without our consent or perhaps even knowledge.
Is there an acceptable policy we can come up with now to deal with this forthcoming issue, besides: (1) recompiling the source and having it reside on our own machines (which defeats the point of web services); (2) having multiple versions of every library available by the author for years on end?
I see this more as an issue for the Open Source community than for the proprietary platforms, since their answer is likely to be to force the upgrade, without your consent or knowledge.