.NET
-
The recent posts about MS tools for Linux and this (link) got me thinking again about something I've wondered about for some time. Microsoft has talked about .NET being a "bet the company" thing for Microsoft. (This is, of course, pure bunk because MS has enough money that if .NET were to fail miserably they'd still have plenty of cash reserves to move on without skipping a beat.) The thing that surprised me was that .NET is *potentially* cross platform. Now, MS's big cash-cow is the Windows OS (profit margins of 85%). The question, then, becomes whether MS will stick to the tried-and-true cash cow of the Windows OS and compromise .NET to preserve that monopoly, or if they are redefining themselves as a cross-platform .NET company. (Maybe that's what they mean by betting the company -- leaving the safety and security of relying on their OS monopoly.) Reasons they should to move to .NET: In general, cross-platform initiatives are stronger now than in the past. Linux and Mac show some strength which MS cannot completely eliminate, hence cross-platform will (for the forseeable future) be a selling point. Java (and others) also opens up the possibility of cross-platform languages. Even if they haven't fully lived up to their potential, MS should be scared that cross-platform will get stronger. If MS doesn't think about the cross-platform market, they may find themselves fighting an unhill battle to get into the market if the world moves there before them. Like Apple, who wanted to retain strong control over the hardware, they may find that trying to keep everyone using their solution (because it makes more money) ends up marginalizing them in the long-run. Additionally, even though .NET is cross-platform, that doesn't mean .NET can't be wielded like a monopoly. By moving from Windows to .NET, MS can still "leverage" the power of .NET to encourage use of its products to consumers and bully OEMs. Reasons to stick to Windows: It's an enormous cash cow. As I mentioned, it has 85% profit margins and accounts for roughtly half of all MS's profit. Ownership of the OS also gives them leverage in other areas. For example, MS's ownership of the OS helped it to take control of the browser market from an already entrenched company. And it also helped establish WMP - allowing MS to move into the multimedia market in hopes of moving into the home entertainment market. What has Microsoft done in the past? Microsoft also
-
The recent posts about MS tools for Linux and this (link) got me thinking again about something I've wondered about for some time. Microsoft has talked about .NET being a "bet the company" thing for Microsoft. (This is, of course, pure bunk because MS has enough money that if .NET were to fail miserably they'd still have plenty of cash reserves to move on without skipping a beat.) The thing that surprised me was that .NET is *potentially* cross platform. Now, MS's big cash-cow is the Windows OS (profit margins of 85%). The question, then, becomes whether MS will stick to the tried-and-true cash cow of the Windows OS and compromise .NET to preserve that monopoly, or if they are redefining themselves as a cross-platform .NET company. (Maybe that's what they mean by betting the company -- leaving the safety and security of relying on their OS monopoly.) Reasons they should to move to .NET: In general, cross-platform initiatives are stronger now than in the past. Linux and Mac show some strength which MS cannot completely eliminate, hence cross-platform will (for the forseeable future) be a selling point. Java (and others) also opens up the possibility of cross-platform languages. Even if they haven't fully lived up to their potential, MS should be scared that cross-platform will get stronger. If MS doesn't think about the cross-platform market, they may find themselves fighting an unhill battle to get into the market if the world moves there before them. Like Apple, who wanted to retain strong control over the hardware, they may find that trying to keep everyone using their solution (because it makes more money) ends up marginalizing them in the long-run. Additionally, even though .NET is cross-platform, that doesn't mean .NET can't be wielded like a monopoly. By moving from Windows to .NET, MS can still "leverage" the power of .NET to encourage use of its products to consumers and bully OEMs. Reasons to stick to Windows: It's an enormous cash cow. As I mentioned, it has 85% profit margins and accounts for roughtly half of all MS's profit. Ownership of the OS also gives them leverage in other areas. For example, MS's ownership of the OS helped it to take control of the browser market from an already entrenched company. And it also helped establish WMP - allowing MS to move into the multimedia market in hopes of moving into the home entertainment market. What has Microsoft done in the past? Microsoft also
"My own guess is that MS will make sure .NET for Windows is always superior to any other platform's implementation." Sure, maybe. But remember that Microsoft isn't responsible for the "other" implementations. They released the specifications for Mono and friends to implement themselves. And I strongly suspect that Miguel and company are plenty up to the task. Also remember that they're trying to create a standard. Such a task requires responsibility and consistency; pulling a "Java" on us now would just be silly. :-D
-
The recent posts about MS tools for Linux and this (link) got me thinking again about something I've wondered about for some time. Microsoft has talked about .NET being a "bet the company" thing for Microsoft. (This is, of course, pure bunk because MS has enough money that if .NET were to fail miserably they'd still have plenty of cash reserves to move on without skipping a beat.) The thing that surprised me was that .NET is *potentially* cross platform. Now, MS's big cash-cow is the Windows OS (profit margins of 85%). The question, then, becomes whether MS will stick to the tried-and-true cash cow of the Windows OS and compromise .NET to preserve that monopoly, or if they are redefining themselves as a cross-platform .NET company. (Maybe that's what they mean by betting the company -- leaving the safety and security of relying on their OS monopoly.) Reasons they should to move to .NET: In general, cross-platform initiatives are stronger now than in the past. Linux and Mac show some strength which MS cannot completely eliminate, hence cross-platform will (for the forseeable future) be a selling point. Java (and others) also opens up the possibility of cross-platform languages. Even if they haven't fully lived up to their potential, MS should be scared that cross-platform will get stronger. If MS doesn't think about the cross-platform market, they may find themselves fighting an unhill battle to get into the market if the world moves there before them. Like Apple, who wanted to retain strong control over the hardware, they may find that trying to keep everyone using their solution (because it makes more money) ends up marginalizing them in the long-run. Additionally, even though .NET is cross-platform, that doesn't mean .NET can't be wielded like a monopoly. By moving from Windows to .NET, MS can still "leverage" the power of .NET to encourage use of its products to consumers and bully OEMs. Reasons to stick to Windows: It's an enormous cash cow. As I mentioned, it has 85% profit margins and accounts for roughtly half of all MS's profit. Ownership of the OS also gives them leverage in other areas. For example, MS's ownership of the OS helped it to take control of the browser market from an already entrenched company. And it also helped establish WMP - allowing MS to move into the multimedia market in hopes of moving into the home entertainment market. What has Microsoft done in the past? Microsoft also
Brit wrote: So: will MS redefine itself as a .NET-centric company which is truely cross-platform (and will it become a new cross-platform monopoly?), will it stick to the don't-compromise-the-power-of-Windows philosophy, or something more middle of the road? Is .NET intrinsically more or less powerful as a monopoly than the Windows OS? My 2 x $0.01 guess: (1) As you said, MS will continue to push .NET for its success. The enterprise world has been asking for something like this a while; in the past, they tried to answer this demand with Windows DNA / COM /COM+, but it didn't quite fly when compared with the huge success of Java / J2EE solution. Now .NET seems to be a true competitor of J2EE. (2) I also think they will continue to support the high performance languages and libraries (C++ / MFC / ATL) for sometime to come. There are too much legacy code out there for MS to simply ignore them. Also it will be a while before .NET to catch up desktop / thick client world.
-
The recent posts about MS tools for Linux and this (link) got me thinking again about something I've wondered about for some time. Microsoft has talked about .NET being a "bet the company" thing for Microsoft. (This is, of course, pure bunk because MS has enough money that if .NET were to fail miserably they'd still have plenty of cash reserves to move on without skipping a beat.) The thing that surprised me was that .NET is *potentially* cross platform. Now, MS's big cash-cow is the Windows OS (profit margins of 85%). The question, then, becomes whether MS will stick to the tried-and-true cash cow of the Windows OS and compromise .NET to preserve that monopoly, or if they are redefining themselves as a cross-platform .NET company. (Maybe that's what they mean by betting the company -- leaving the safety and security of relying on their OS monopoly.) Reasons they should to move to .NET: In general, cross-platform initiatives are stronger now than in the past. Linux and Mac show some strength which MS cannot completely eliminate, hence cross-platform will (for the forseeable future) be a selling point. Java (and others) also opens up the possibility of cross-platform languages. Even if they haven't fully lived up to their potential, MS should be scared that cross-platform will get stronger. If MS doesn't think about the cross-platform market, they may find themselves fighting an unhill battle to get into the market if the world moves there before them. Like Apple, who wanted to retain strong control over the hardware, they may find that trying to keep everyone using their solution (because it makes more money) ends up marginalizing them in the long-run. Additionally, even though .NET is cross-platform, that doesn't mean .NET can't be wielded like a monopoly. By moving from Windows to .NET, MS can still "leverage" the power of .NET to encourage use of its products to consumers and bully OEMs. Reasons to stick to Windows: It's an enormous cash cow. As I mentioned, it has 85% profit margins and accounts for roughtly half of all MS's profit. Ownership of the OS also gives them leverage in other areas. For example, MS's ownership of the OS helped it to take control of the browser market from an already entrenched company. And it also helped establish WMP - allowing MS to move into the multimedia market in hopes of moving into the home entertainment market. What has Microsoft done in the past? Microsoft also
tough question to answer..if u ask me - i would say "both". basically, we are talking of two huge markets here - the PC and the server market.. in the PC mkt, MS-Office will continue to be the bread and butter for MS..i dont see anything replacing it in years.. as for the server mkt, MS was never in this earlier they are finding a foothole here only now..this is where MS would focus its .NET servers on..(actually this mkt is now seeing MS/Windows and IBM/linux increasing its presence and the SUN slowing setting in the horizon).. There are no failures; there are only extended learning opportunities.
-
"My own guess is that MS will make sure .NET for Windows is always superior to any other platform's implementation." Sure, maybe. But remember that Microsoft isn't responsible for the "other" implementations. They released the specifications for Mono and friends to implement themselves. And I strongly suspect that Miguel and company are plenty up to the task. Also remember that they're trying to create a standard. Such a task requires responsibility and consistency; pulling a "Java" on us now would just be silly. :-D
Sure, maybe. But remember that Microsoft isn't responsible for the "other" implementations. If MS takes that attitude, then it reveals they aren't interested in cross-platform. Your assertion that "Microsoft isn't responsible" (if that's their attitude) reveals a LOT about Microsoft's strategy. Ignoring things would be part of the strategy in that case. They released the specifications for Mono and friends to implement themselves. And I strongly suspect that Miguel and company are plenty up to the task. You're piting the world's most powerful software company against them and saying they're 'up to the task'? I really doubt it. Like I said, MS can pump out enough new stuff to keep everyone years behind even if they have the specs, and MS always can release proprietary extensions that keep other groups behind forever. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
The recent posts about MS tools for Linux and this (link) got me thinking again about something I've wondered about for some time. Microsoft has talked about .NET being a "bet the company" thing for Microsoft. (This is, of course, pure bunk because MS has enough money that if .NET were to fail miserably they'd still have plenty of cash reserves to move on without skipping a beat.) The thing that surprised me was that .NET is *potentially* cross platform. Now, MS's big cash-cow is the Windows OS (profit margins of 85%). The question, then, becomes whether MS will stick to the tried-and-true cash cow of the Windows OS and compromise .NET to preserve that monopoly, or if they are redefining themselves as a cross-platform .NET company. (Maybe that's what they mean by betting the company -- leaving the safety and security of relying on their OS monopoly.) Reasons they should to move to .NET: In general, cross-platform initiatives are stronger now than in the past. Linux and Mac show some strength which MS cannot completely eliminate, hence cross-platform will (for the forseeable future) be a selling point. Java (and others) also opens up the possibility of cross-platform languages. Even if they haven't fully lived up to their potential, MS should be scared that cross-platform will get stronger. If MS doesn't think about the cross-platform market, they may find themselves fighting an unhill battle to get into the market if the world moves there before them. Like Apple, who wanted to retain strong control over the hardware, they may find that trying to keep everyone using their solution (because it makes more money) ends up marginalizing them in the long-run. Additionally, even though .NET is cross-platform, that doesn't mean .NET can't be wielded like a monopoly. By moving from Windows to .NET, MS can still "leverage" the power of .NET to encourage use of its products to consumers and bully OEMs. Reasons to stick to Windows: It's an enormous cash cow. As I mentioned, it has 85% profit margins and accounts for roughtly half of all MS's profit. Ownership of the OS also gives them leverage in other areas. For example, MS's ownership of the OS helped it to take control of the browser market from an already entrenched company. And it also helped establish WMP - allowing MS to move into the multimedia market in hopes of moving into the home entertainment market. What has Microsoft done in the past? Microsoft also
In my humble opinion, the proclaimed cross-platform issue is just hype. Consider this: what has been standardized so far consists of merely two components, the C# language and the CLI. But this does not include the GUI part (which, to the best of my knowledge remains a proprietary library for Windows-only systems) nor server-side technologies like ASP.NET and such. So, these two implications follow:
- On the client-side, MS is providing little support for emerging full-blown cross-paltform apps executable on different OSs. Besides, MS Windows superiority is so huge that this is probably not a serious concern for them (although there are initiatives like Mono that could become a threat, and note Mono is in no way supported by MS).
- On the server side, MS retains control of .NET, and will use the .NET lot as a booster for its servers, where there's a lot of share to reap from J2EE competitors.
The situation (with regard to cross-platform deployment) is even worse than for J2EE: Sun was moved by similar intentions, and has become strong on the server side, but at least J2EE as a whole is an open technology for which entire frameworks are built for OSs other than Solaris. Would you expect a manager to buy a Unix system for doing ASP.NET? The only point (as I see it) where MS is giving some access to competitors is in the market of Windows-based C# IDEs, where all the necessary stuff is documented and standardized. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
-
In my humble opinion, the proclaimed cross-platform issue is just hype. Consider this: what has been standardized so far consists of merely two components, the C# language and the CLI. But this does not include the GUI part (which, to the best of my knowledge remains a proprietary library for Windows-only systems) nor server-side technologies like ASP.NET and such. So, these two implications follow:
- On the client-side, MS is providing little support for emerging full-blown cross-paltform apps executable on different OSs. Besides, MS Windows superiority is so huge that this is probably not a serious concern for them (although there are initiatives like Mono that could become a threat, and note Mono is in no way supported by MS).
- On the server side, MS retains control of .NET, and will use the .NET lot as a booster for its servers, where there's a lot of share to reap from J2EE competitors.
The situation (with regard to cross-platform deployment) is even worse than for J2EE: Sun was moved by similar intentions, and has become strong on the server side, but at least J2EE as a whole is an open technology for which entire frameworks are built for OSs other than Solaris. Would you expect a manager to buy a Unix system for doing ASP.NET? The only point (as I see it) where MS is giving some access to competitors is in the market of Windows-based C# IDEs, where all the necessary stuff is documented and standardized. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Mono Ships ASP.NET server[^] ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Mono Ships ASP.NET server[^] ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Yes it does (and supports Windows.Forms too), but the effort has been done mainly by cloning what MS already has, not from a detailed specification intended to promote cross-platformness for this technology (Wine, for instance, goes on the same line). This is not something MS has planned for or supports in any way (J2EE, on the contrary, has a reference implementation written in Java). My point is: It is certainly possible to clone the .NET server-side stuff, but this is not what MS wishes --instead, MS aims to retain the server side in order to promote .NET servers as an alternative to J2EE. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
-
Yes it does (and supports Windows.Forms too), but the effort has been done mainly by cloning what MS already has, not from a detailed specification intended to promote cross-platformness for this technology (Wine, for instance, goes on the same line). This is not something MS has planned for or supports in any way (J2EE, on the contrary, has a reference implementation written in Java). My point is: It is certainly possible to clone the .NET server-side stuff, but this is not what MS wishes --instead, MS aims to retain the server side in order to promote .NET servers as an alternative to J2EE. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
You seem to be complaining about how they've done it, not that they haven't done it...... Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
The recent posts about MS tools for Linux and this (link) got me thinking again about something I've wondered about for some time. Microsoft has talked about .NET being a "bet the company" thing for Microsoft. (This is, of course, pure bunk because MS has enough money that if .NET were to fail miserably they'd still have plenty of cash reserves to move on without skipping a beat.) The thing that surprised me was that .NET is *potentially* cross platform. Now, MS's big cash-cow is the Windows OS (profit margins of 85%). The question, then, becomes whether MS will stick to the tried-and-true cash cow of the Windows OS and compromise .NET to preserve that monopoly, or if they are redefining themselves as a cross-platform .NET company. (Maybe that's what they mean by betting the company -- leaving the safety and security of relying on their OS monopoly.) Reasons they should to move to .NET: In general, cross-platform initiatives are stronger now than in the past. Linux and Mac show some strength which MS cannot completely eliminate, hence cross-platform will (for the forseeable future) be a selling point. Java (and others) also opens up the possibility of cross-platform languages. Even if they haven't fully lived up to their potential, MS should be scared that cross-platform will get stronger. If MS doesn't think about the cross-platform market, they may find themselves fighting an unhill battle to get into the market if the world moves there before them. Like Apple, who wanted to retain strong control over the hardware, they may find that trying to keep everyone using their solution (because it makes more money) ends up marginalizing them in the long-run. Additionally, even though .NET is cross-platform, that doesn't mean .NET can't be wielded like a monopoly. By moving from Windows to .NET, MS can still "leverage" the power of .NET to encourage use of its products to consumers and bully OEMs. Reasons to stick to Windows: It's an enormous cash cow. As I mentioned, it has 85% profit margins and accounts for roughtly half of all MS's profit. Ownership of the OS also gives them leverage in other areas. For example, MS's ownership of the OS helped it to take control of the browser market from an already entrenched company. And it also helped establish WMP - allowing MS to move into the multimedia market in hopes of moving into the home entertainment market. What has Microsoft done in the past? Microsoft also
Its simple, .NET is the beginning of their future operating system. Windows is changing forms. And yeah, it might become Linux's framework too. Ingram Leedy You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. --Mark Twain
-
In my humble opinion, the proclaimed cross-platform issue is just hype. Consider this: what has been standardized so far consists of merely two components, the C# language and the CLI. But this does not include the GUI part (which, to the best of my knowledge remains a proprietary library for Windows-only systems) nor server-side technologies like ASP.NET and such. So, these two implications follow:
- On the client-side, MS is providing little support for emerging full-blown cross-paltform apps executable on different OSs. Besides, MS Windows superiority is so huge that this is probably not a serious concern for them (although there are initiatives like Mono that could become a threat, and note Mono is in no way supported by MS).
- On the server side, MS retains control of .NET, and will use the .NET lot as a booster for its servers, where there's a lot of share to reap from J2EE competitors.
The situation (with regard to cross-platform deployment) is even worse than for J2EE: Sun was moved by similar intentions, and has become strong on the server side, but at least J2EE as a whole is an open technology for which entire frameworks are built for OSs other than Solaris. Would you expect a manager to buy a Unix system for doing ASP.NET? The only point (as I see it) where MS is giving some access to competitors is in the market of Windows-based C# IDEs, where all the necessary stuff is documented and standardized. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
I have also felt that ADO.NET being a large part in most .NET web development, .NET without ADO.NET and the other OS infrastructure like say CDO etc., we have no hope for any really cross-platform .NET code. .NET being cross-platform is just a marketing point now, helped along by Mono and such; like IBM harping about Linux trying to sell their highly price machines. I do not expect true interop in the near future between these OSs. The only silver lining is the web services part, which provides a very loosely coupled mechanism to move data around. In that sense, we need not be too much concerned about moving applications completely to another OS ever again. We can have applications talk to each other across OS boundaries with SOAP and web sevices. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers