| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Is Microsoft getting ahead of itself? | |
|
||
| Time: 08:08 EST/13:08 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
As far back as 1999, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer looked ahead enthusiastically to the rise of Web services as "more significant than the development of the browser." In typical Microsoft fashion, the world's largest software manufacturer dived headlong into the trend with a rush of marketing hyperbole. Also in character, at least according to critics, the company created much buzz about the new technology before fully developing its concept, let alone any actual products or services. As Microsoft prepares to launch the first trials of .Net My Services this fall, key details of the plan are still "not figured out," said Jim Allchin, Microsoft's group vice president in charge of Windows and server software development. "I think we just got ahead of ourselves and didn't get clear enough thinking," he said, echoing similar concerns voiced last August. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 321 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:17:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/19/2002 10:54:59 AM |
|
This article confirms what I've been saying all along. Microsoft can't force anything on consumers. If the consumers don't want it, they won't be buying into it.
So Microsoft is looking at that and reevaluating the reality. What the slash-doters(and probably yourself) keep claiming is that consumers have no choice, this is going to be rammed down their throat, blah blah blah blah. You'd think after reading so many articles over time you'd finally start getting it, but instead you just continue to want to be a confrontational whiner. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/19/2002 12:37:35 PM |
|
#3 - Anybody who has followed Microsoft for a long time knows that they moreso than any other company listen to consumer demand.
#4 - Ok let's clarify a couple of points here. The concept of My Services from Microsoft is overhyped. I don't see a large market for it, or at least not one with signifigant revenues. The concept of web services as a technology is not overhyped. Well maybe a bit, but this is a dramatic technology which opens up a lot of options. You have to make the distinction between implementation and the technology. Compare web services to looking at boo.com and saying "The web browser is overhyped, nobody really needs it." The technology itself is actually really quite good and useful, and implemented properly can save a business a lot of effort, time, etc. But you have to have a good business model to work off of, which is the implementation of the technology. There are already thousands of companies out there today providing for fee services via network links. Most of those services are provided via leased lines, but that is irrelevant to the web services technology. I am thinking in particular services such as Equifax, Lexis-Nexis and so on. Now maybe it'll be some time, but what web services offer these companies is a cost savings because they no longer have to worry about writing the data transport layer for their applications. It also allows subscribers to better integrate the retrieved data service(in particular credit reports from Equifax) into their in-house developed applications. I don't wish to berate the point, but this is what I find frustrating about having arguments with slash-dotters and the ilk. They're technically challenged and incapable of seeing past their pre-conceived notions and biases. |
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/19/2002 2:11:49 PM |
|
I actually see a lot of the .NET My Services has having enourmous potential. I'm not entirely sure it will catch on simply because nobody has a clue what the hell it is yet, but hype or not, it's cool stuff.
Web Services in general have HUGE commerical potential. I mean HUGE. HUGE as in an entirely new industry will be built off of them. HUGE damnit. :-) |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2002 3:17:58 PM |
|
Potentially huge, but overhyped and even MS is obviously confused. This shows that the other app server companies (IBM, BEA, Sun/Netscape, etc...) are just as far as MS (i.e they have XML, SOAP, and (in some cases) UDDI).
Now MS is saying My Services aren't that popular because people (and them) don't know how to use them meaningfully, usefully. They're also saying that the first area of implementation and the strongest for web services will be the intranet--if this stuff is best suited for a homogeneous, controlled environment, why bother? Aren't COM objects good enough; instead you are talking about recoding data with XML data structures (potentially useful but time consuming), but why would you bother create the proper directory listings if its only meant for internal use? On the other side, the actual web, you are talking about companies needing to recode data with extensive XML (inevitable but they need to see the benefit), and hopefully it's useful, and then creating the proper directories so that outside companies can use the data--but where's the motivation? If data is going to be shared with other systems but not with programming bridges but simply data bridges, why leave the current technology that you are using--there's alot of XML out there after all, but there's hardly motivation to be able to talk to many devices beside a PC, really. Where's the profit motive; Equifax, Lexis-Nexis, Infospace, many other companies, made money by selling you the data layer; if they create a public UDDI listing and provide users with instructions how to pull the data, they no longer have a product. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/19/2002 4:44:01 PM |
|
And once again sodajerk proves he is technically inept. :(
Equifax, Lexis-Nexis, Infospace and many other companies sell you data. They don't care about the transport layer, they care about the data. Credit pulls are something like $15/each, Lexis-Nexis charges like $6/article, etc... |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2002 5:00:26 PM |
| soda, I'm aware its data that they sell, but their need to create a transport layer is what creates the sellable product. If these companies had publically available UDDI listings and exposed XML data, that goes bye-bye. I realize they'll still be able to charge, but guess what? they already do charge and provide this data--so where's the added benefit? That's my point, soda, so if you think you're wonderful for finding niggling little flaws to my argument, well, aren't you super! If, on the other hand, you can explain how these service companies can substantially change how and what they deliver and that this will provide substantial benefit to them and their customers, then I would appreciate your rebuttal. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/19/2002 5:39:18 PM |
|
jerk, You appear to be under this mistaken assumption that utilizing web services means the company is providing their services entirely for free. All of those were examples of existing subscription services for data. The only thing that changes is we now have a standardized data transport layer that anyone can leverage.
I simply used them as examples to your ridiculous statements that nobody would possibly be interested in creating a service to provide data. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/19/2002 5:39:41 PM |
|
#10 - It is.
|
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2002 6:00:39 PM |
|
No, I'm not assuming they give them away for free; what I am assuming is that the benefit is derived from an open platform... This is after all what most people talk about... plugging into some other companies data by accessing their publicly available UDDI listings. Why do these separate companies need a standard Proprietary method of delivering their services when they have developed their own, and are probably remarkably similar to others because they are built on the available technology, if its only the data that needs to be delivered.
Again, what is the new, derived benefit of such a service company moving to .Net? If I keep getting it so so wrong, there must be an obvious and crystal clear benefit that should extend their capabilities and improve their profits. What is it? |
| #10 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/19/2002 6:24:53 PM |
|
#13 - "Why do these separate companies need a standard Proprietary method..."
Huh? First off, that doesn't really make sense. If it's a standard, then it's not proprietary. Second, what's proprietary about SOAP/XML? Last I checked, these are completely open standards not controlled by any company. Second, SOAP/XML provides a really good foundation for consuming remote resources (data, programmatic stuff, etc.) that simply didn't exist before. There were many proprietary methods before SOAP/XML, but all were deficient in one area or another. SOAP isn't perfect, but it's the best choice so far, as you can see from the fact that many competing companies are embracing it. "Again, what is the new, derived benefit of such a service company moving to .Net?" Well, that of course depends on the situation. One major benefit will be exposure. Because so many major companies will be supporting SOAP/XML Web Services, it will allow you to offer your services to a much larger range of people. In addition, since SOAP/XML are extensible by nature, the standard will evolve over time (while not breaking older implementations), thereby creating a self perpetuating loop. As far as .NET specifically, for existing services that use SOAP/XML, there really isn't much benefits. (Since it's all based on standards.) If there are new projects coming down the pipe, the productivity enhancements alone would be worth the move. #7... Speaking of productivity enhancements, have any of you used IBM or Sun's attempts at web service tools? Now, Web Sphere has made HUGE progress, and it's very cool now... although still not as easy to use as .NET. Sun, on the other hand, simply sucks. I've used SOAP/XML Web Services on everything from PERL, to Java, to Web Sphere... and honestly, none hold a candle (*except for perhaps Web Sphere*) to .NET. As far as COM+ being better for homogeneous environments... yes, kinda. If you have existing applications utilizing COM+ in an intranet environment, and they work well, there is almost no reason to move these to .NET. In fact, you could simply wrap them in .NET shells, and use them natively in your new .NET projects. For new stuff, as is the case with Web Services, .NET is a great solution. .NET Remoting offers all the abilities of COM+, but is substantially easier to use/write, and are nearly as fast in my limited testing. The gains from the decrease in development time are substantial. In general, here is what I'm planning on doing with my various clients: 1.) If the client has existing XML Web Services (via IBM, BEA, etc.) leave em alone since they will interop perfectly with the emerging standards. If, however, they are using Sun, I would duplicate the services in .NET (or Web Sphere) and focus on using them in the future. 2.) If the client has existing COM+ WinDNA applications that work fine, leave em alone, but create a .NET wrapper for them so they can be used in future .NET applications. From that point on, use .NET Remoting for intranet stuff, and .NET Web Services for internet stuff. Make sense? |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2002 6:56:50 PM |
|
"If it's a standard, then it's not proprietary." It's proprietary in that your easy to use .Net Web Service will only run on .Net (Windows) Servers--that's the proprietary bit, the supposedly useful bit. My assertion is that .Net doesn't have anything exclusive about it when it comes to XML/SOAP/UDDI. That these services can be delivered without .Net. In fact, some companies are doing so already. So why switch to something that can only be deployed and developed on MS products?
"One major benefit will be exposure." How does that work exactly: some of these service companies already exist, they already market, they know their audience and try to create clients from that base... Now by switching to .Net, they suddenly get more exposure and clients? How is that? If you are talking about UDDI, that was my point to soda. He presumed I meant this would force them into giving it away for free. You see, I may now be able to "discover" these services, but I still have to do business with the provider. I haven't really increased my exposure if there is a business decision to be negotiated and made. Personally, if there is a service I need to implement, I can research the providers. This pseudo-discovery, hence marketing, argument is a bit silly. If I understand you correctly. "As far as .NET specifically, for existing services that use SOAP/XML, there really isn't much benefits." Exactly my point. As you say, SOAP isn't perfect and I don't think the markets really exist for its true benefits (communication w/ virtually any device), but I've taken XML for granted for the last year or two. So what's the benefit of .Net? I already know the benefit of XML. So, if it's an intranet and COM based don't change it, just evolve to the NEW product because that is itself an amorphous, evolving, and ill-defined NEW technology which will probably be superceded by another new MS product two years from now... if it's an XML data service, don't change it, just evolve it to the NEW product, etc... if you are a consumer, there aren't really any useful implementations yet, possibly never... and if you have no reason to openly exchange data with other companies, don't use it... On the other hand, don't use Java because it's tougher to implement even though you can migrate it to various platforms, every major vendor besides MS supports it (and it does run on MS products), every other server product and alternative device is built with it, but ignore that. Makes sense, just don't see a substantial benefit to any sort of large push, or growth; if anything, I see reason to hesitate, be confused, or be paranoid that Microsoft is going to change a line in a EULA, or have its network breached, or write a poor service that gets exploited, or never penetrates the cellphone market, or doesn't achieve enough steam in the PDA, tablet, or appliance market, or decides to antiquate it with a new up-and-coming product, or be screwed financially by 50 different lawsuits, or start charging some per usage charge, or creates 90 different server products--each costing an arm and a leg but only minimal feature differences or.... This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 19:51. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2002 8:23:37 PM |
| Because ActiveWin wouldn't post them. Why can't you allow for discourse that's more than one inane question? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 321 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:17:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
