To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
more that its money in selling the tools that allow others to build solutions.
right now microsoft have a complete tools package from os on up, windows on server and desktop, exchange and active directory for the network, ms office for the interface.
and for more specialized solutions there is visual basic or c++, and now .net...
but they all tie together...
basicly what they did was that they out-novelled novell all those years ago, and have mantained control to this day.
when netscape tryed to pull a fast one with web-apps, they managed to kill that of with IE and activex on top of the existing stack.
in many ways, netscape was ahead of its time. the webapp needed a more speedy connection to the net so that graphics and similar could be loaded on the fly.
this is what we see today with google and ajax.
now if google can turn their google mail into a cooperation system to rival that of exchange, and provide it all over a encrypted connection, things will be truely interesting.
microsoft, i think, have spotted this and thats why they are rolling out "live". problem is that its about to go into the same trap that .net did. to many services and other stuff is getting the live label.





Member since:
2006-05-11
I wonder if they would have that problem if they went open-source?
Of course, I dont see why Microsoft would, theres to much money in Operating Systems...
"Windows Genuine Dis-Advantage"
People still have to buy it, so why complain?