Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Feb 2010 22:55 UTC
Microsoft Sometimes, the sheer size of a company like Microsoft can make it quite hard to see and realise just how large and profitable such a company can really be. In these kinds of situations, there's nothing like a clear graph to make all those pretty numbers tangible. Up to a point.
Thread beginning with comment 409213
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 13th Feb 2010 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

The long term future is the Web and the Internet device, everything in-between is transition.


You should talk to Sun. This whole network web computer thing has been working out so well for them, you see.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Sat 13th Feb 2010 21:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

An idea has to fail first before it can succeed. Sun made a long list of mistakes that marginalised Java, they were always second fiddle on the OS and so couldn't ever innovate. With ChromeOS and the iPad there is no middleman for content, nothing that has to be download and installed to then download and install something else. No multi-layered mess.

Sun were never putting the average user first, they were trying to appeal to businesses and developers. The awful Java installer and runtime are still clear indicators that they have little clue about the end-user. If Oracle have an ounce of sense they will clean that crap up quick.

Sun failed because they tried to change the web from the middle out. Apple and Google will succeed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by tomcat on Sat 13th Feb 2010 22:30 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

With ChromeOS and the iPad there is no middleman for content, nothing that has to be download and installed to then download and install something else. No multi-layered mess.


Nonsense. For the iPad, the experience will be the same as the iPhone; where you have the "Managed Web"; that is, local native applications that consume content from the Web, but provide a better experience than a Web browser. Google is trying to create programming environment within Chrome OS where devs can access Web content primarily via HTML5, but also have local device access via Javascript. Spending a few minutes in Safari or Chrome browser on one of these portable devices is all that it takes to convince you that, while Google's proposed platform is more "open" (unless you consider its native OS Javascript extensions), Apple will provide a better user experience with local native apps. Apple is not really interested in marginalizing their platform with HTML5. They want to make the Web accessible, but only to the extent that it doesn't cannibalize their ecosystem.

Sun were never putting the average user first, they were trying to appeal to businesses and developers. The awful Java installer and runtime are still clear indicators that they have little clue about the end-user. If Oracle have an ounce of sense they will clean that crap up quick.


Sun is not a consumer-focused company. They are first and foremost a workstation and server company. It's their DNA. It's why they failed.

Sun failed because they tried to change the web from the middle out.


Agree. For Sun, "the network is the computer" really meant "buy our server hardware and just use thin client software". Complete non-starter which ignored the reality of how people use portable computing devices.

Apple and Google will succeed.


Apple, Google, and Microsoft will all succeed in varying ways. Of these 3, Apple and Microsoft are the most similar: They want you to use local native apps that consume Web/cloud content. Apple wants to lock you into a closed ecosystem, which limits your choice and flexibility but offers greater security/robustness. Microsoft doesn't mind where apps come from, which provides flexibility but limits security/robustness. Google wants you to primarily use Web technologies to consume Web content, and also access some local capabilities. None of their separate strategies can possibly satisfy all broad-based market need.

If you assume a future where infinite bandwidth exists, then the differences between local and Web start to fall away, and what starts to matter is ubiquity and standards. So Google probably aligns better with the year 2030. But it's not clear whether HTML5-based apps can match the local native app experience. Google is betting on that happening. It's the only way they can continue to grow the search market; without it, Google knows that Apple and Microsoft will only benefit.

Reply Parent Score: 3