Not only that, there's no way that the aveage price MS gets from each copy of Office Pro is $475 or whatever it was that you quote from Amazon. I would be surprised if the average price is more than $200 copy with prices a little higher at low volumes and lower at high volumes.
I just re-read my post and I sound incredibly arrogant. Sorry! But I guess that's not unusual on slasdot. My POV is based partly on good info, not just random opinion.
Ultimately the meaning behind any marketing term is somewhat arbitrary. When Apple came out with the Apple name, it initially didn't mean anything. Over the years it came to mean a lot in the minds of many people. That's kind of what a brand name is all about, right?.NET is the same thing only MS has done a very bad job defining it. Re-naming the Windows.net server is (perhaps) a step in the right direction. If you look at the leaked Q&A from the announcement, it seems very clear to me what they're doing. I'll try to explain in simple terms.
1. In the beginning they announced.NET as a web services initiative - basically a way of writing software that uses XML, SOAP, WSDL etc. to allow apps to interoperate. A poor mans COM.
2. The a bunch of marketing goofs started attaching the name to lots of things - most importantly the.net framework.
3. The.net framework is - for all intensive purposes three things. First, it's a new programming model for Windows based on the common language runtime that makes it much easier to write secure, stable Windows appps. It also includes a new version of ASP that makes building web-based easier. It also includes facilities that for building XML web services and a bunch of new class libraries for Windows and web apps.
4. The big mistake they made was putting.net into the name of the framework because it confused everyone. To people who can't read the tea leaves, it suggests that any appliacation built ising the framework is a ".net app." In reality, most of the apps built using the.net framework today are just better, more secure Windows apps or ASP/web-based apps.
With the announcement they said in clear terms that the.net brand is about Web services interop. They obviously still want people to build Windows apps and are making it easier to do so than it has been with Win32/MFC etc. So they're building web services capability deep into their platform -into Windows, into Office I'm sure and into all of their server apps.
For developers this is a beautiful thing. They can take it or leave it. They choose to build on Windows based on its merits. Market opportunity, ease of development or whatever. Some may ultimately choose to build on Windows because Windows has good XML web services support.
I think MS's strategy is to continue to make Windows as good as they can and compete with J2 by providing superior support for web services. The theory (just a theory) is that if web services mature then developers can choose whatever platform they want and rely on web services to stitch things together across platforms. This could be a good strategy because it undermines the Java-only argument. No need to build apps on a single platform (middleware platform in this case) because web services provide good cross plat interop.
So, the bottom line is that MS is narrowing what.net is to web services/interop. The.net framework programming model/CLR etc is, fundamentally a Windows thing. No surprise, right?
That said, MS is taking parts of the.net framework/CLR programming model and porting it to other platforms. That way they can try to lure ISV's to build "Windows apps" that run on other platforms. I know. Sounds confusing but I think this is accurate.
This is way MS, IBM and other companies are so excited about web services and why others - particularly SUN, have been a little slow on the uptake. Although this is overly simplistic, Sun/the J2 crowd basically want everything to be Java/J2. IBM will sell anything to anyone. MS wants to make Windows the most attractive platform.
Gosh, this almost sounds like good old competition to me.
Sorry for the ramble but, mark my words, this is the correct interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, there's no way that the aveage price MS gets from each copy of Office Pro is $475 or whatever it was that you quote from Amazon. I would be surprised if the average price is more than $200 copy with prices a little higher at low volumes and lower at high volumes.
Thanks very much for raising the level of discourse...
Sorry. Just got excited.
I just re-read my post and I sound incredibly arrogant. Sorry! But I guess that's not unusual on slasdot. My POV is based partly on good info, not just random opinion.
Cheers
Ultimately the meaning behind any marketing term is somewhat arbitrary. When Apple came out with the Apple name, it initially didn't mean anything. Over the years it came to mean a lot in the minds of many people. That's kind of what a brand name is all about, right? .NET is the same thing only MS has done a very bad job defining it. Re-naming the Windows .net server is (perhaps) a step in the right direction. If you look at the leaked Q&A from the announcement, it seems very clear to me what they're doing. I'll try to explain in simple terms.
.NET as a web services initiative - basically a way of writing software that uses XML, SOAP, WSDL etc. to allow apps to interoperate. A poor mans COM.
.net framework.
.net framework is - for all intensive purposes three things. First, it's a new programming model for Windows based on the common language runtime that makes it much easier to write secure, stable Windows appps. It also includes a new version of ASP that makes building web-based easier. It also includes facilities that for building XML web services and a bunch of new class libraries for Windows and web apps.
.net into the name of the framework because it confused everyone. To people who can't read the tea leaves, it suggests that any appliacation built ising the framework is a ".net app." In reality, most of the apps built using the .net framework today are just better, more secure Windows apps or ASP/web-based apps.
.net brand is about Web services interop. They obviously still want people to build Windows apps and are making it easier to do so than it has been with Win32/MFC etc. So they're building web services capability deep into their platform -into Windows, into Office I'm sure and into all of their server apps.
.net is to web services/interop. The .net framework programming model/CLR etc is, fundamentally a Windows thing. No surprise, right?
.net framework/CLR programming model and porting it to other platforms. That way they can try to lure ISV's to build "Windows apps" that run on other platforms. I know. Sounds confusing but I think this is accurate.
1. In the beginning they announced
2. The a bunch of marketing goofs started attaching the name to lots of things - most importantly the
3. The
4. The big mistake they made was putting
With the announcement they said in clear terms that the
For developers this is a beautiful thing. They can take it or leave it. They choose to build on Windows based on its merits. Market opportunity, ease of development or whatever. Some may ultimately choose to build on Windows because Windows has good XML web services support.
I think MS's strategy is to continue to make Windows as good as they can and compete with J2 by providing superior support for web services. The theory (just a theory) is that if web services mature then developers can choose whatever platform they want and rely on web services to stitch things together across platforms. This could be a good strategy because it undermines the Java-only argument. No need to build apps on a single platform (middleware platform in this case) because web services provide good cross plat interop.
So, the bottom line is that MS is narrowing what
That said, MS is taking parts of the
This is way MS, IBM and other companies are so excited about web services and why others - particularly SUN, have been a little slow on the uptake. Although this is overly simplistic, Sun/the J2 crowd basically want everything to be Java/J2. IBM will sell anything to anyone. MS wants to make Windows the most attractive platform.
Gosh, this almost sounds like good old competition to me.
Sorry for the ramble but, mark my words, this is the correct interpretation.