Anne: Well said.
Sun, despite good intentions and best efforts, cannot seem to morph into a software company. In fact, Scott McNealy has repeatedly said that when you a car, the left-turn signal, for example, comes with it; you don't pay for it. You pay for the hardware (car); software is free. Unfortunately, all of Scott's Detroit-focused anecdotes and examples are getting outdated, just as Detroit and the Big Three (or two-and-a-half) are still asleep at the wheel! I am anxious to see how Sun will monetize its investment in SeeBeyond. M. R. Pamidi --- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll provide a slightly different perspective. > > On Microsoft: > Microsoft defines its own path and doesn't like to follow the crowd. > Microsoft views SOA as too grandiose, and it is instead focusing on more > practical, pragmatic, and tactical issues rather than life-style changing, > strategic initiatives like SOA. > > The Microsoft Servers and Tools group (responsible for Windows Server, > Windows Server System, .NET, and Visual Studio) has repeated told me that > they aren't comfortable with service-oriented "architecture". Instead they > are focusing on service-oriented "computing". The buzz word for their > marketing message is "Connected Systems", not SOA. > > This is the group that focuses on the enterprise software market: a > superplatform that competes with the likes of WebSphere, WebLogic, and > Oracle Fusion. I agree with Dan that this group does not view an ESB as an > end game opportunity. In fact, this group dismisses an ESB as, at best, a > temporarily marginally useful middleware product that fills in a few gaps > while the WS-* specs are being finalized, but will soon become irrelevant. I > seriously doubt that this group will ever produce an ESB. It already has > BizTalk, and it's about to release Windows Communication Foundation (WCF, > aka "Indigo"). > > Meanwhile, Microsoft is focusing on making it easier to build new apps and > to integrate old ones. .NET and WinFX (aka "Indigo", "Avalon", and Windows > Workflow Foundation) are excellent frameworks for rapidly building > applications and making applications communicate. Reusable services, > business alignment, and other terminology often associated with SOA are not > part of Microsoft's Connected Systems vocabulary. > > The more strategic part of Microsoft's Connected Systems message has to do > with designing systems for operations -- the Dynamic Systems Initiative > (DSI) and System Definition Model (SDM) stuff. > > Other groups within Microsoft are focused on productivity applications > (Office) and the consumer market. As Dan said, these groups are very > interested in the SaaS business model, as evidenced by the Office Live and > Windows Live initiatives. But these efforts are orthogonal to the > superplatform group efforts. > > On Sun: > Dan nailed it. Sun doesn't know how to market or sell software, and it's not > willing to invest in retraining the sales force. Sun is a hardware company. > And the only software that it can possibly sell is software that's a > proprietary solution or packaged with hardware. > > Consider this: Sun acquired SeeBeyond in an effort to get in on the SOA > opportunity. How completely typical that they couldn't comprehend the > difference between a proprietary integration technology and standards-based > approach to SOA. > > Pitiful. > > Sun has developed one product that is reasonable well targeted at SOA -- > it's new registry/repository system. Although this product isn't sold > separately. It's only supplied as part of the Sun Java Enterprise System. > > Anne > > On 3/6/06, Gervas Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Daniel, > > > > What your write about MS and their SaaS plans fits in with statements > > I have read. Even so, not everyone will leap unhesitatingly at this > > reinvention of the computer bureau (can you imagine GCHQ rushing into > > this, to give an extreme example?), and that means that large > > organisations now and later are going to demand to know more about > > what they offer on the SOA front. > > > > As regards Sun, I could not possibly expand upon what you have stated > > as I have not had anything like the extent of your direct contact with > > them (Team, Dan is one of the few people on this Group whom I know, > > although it is a couple of years since we viewed each other's ugly > > mug). I did once have a drink with the great Scott McNealy and I > > found him charming and tolerant (he needed to be the latter at that > > stage of the evening). We did not discuss SOA as this was in 1992. > > No, before anyone asks, I have not had the honour of meeting Gregg. > > > > However it would be very interesting to hear from some Solar members > > of this Group how Sun's strategy will take advantage of their > > interesting software assets. > > > > gsd > > > > --- In [email protected], "creswell_dan" > > dan@ wrote: > > > > > > On MS's technology fit to SOA: > > > > > > The problem with SOA is that everyone and his dog has what they deem > > > an SOA product. Interestingly, in most cases, the product they offer > > > is very similar to what they were offering prior to the "rise" of SOA. > > > > > > MS's approach seems to be much more in the vein of assumptions that > > > the SalesForce.com model is one that most people will adopt. I think > > > they are working at a story there but that's all about external facing > > > services. I've seen less about internal facing (i.e. behind the > > > firewall) services. I suspect that MS would say the technology is > > > suitable for both kinds of service but I sense that their emphasis is > > > being directed by their expectation of where the big bucks will be made. > > > > > > And if MS are being coy as you put it, I think that's because they see > > > the end game being not ESB or SOA itself but the external service's > > > market as exhibited by SalesForce.com and so they're trying to leap > > > over a couple of intermediary steps thus gaining a lead. They'll > > > backfill to ESB's etc if they need to but they are after a much more > > > valuable beachhead. > > > > > > On Sun and their software: > > > > > > I think it's horrifyingly simple - Sun still don't see any value in > > > software other than as a means for getting you to buy their > > > hardware/OS. Schwarz has recently been making overtures to HP about > > > merging stuff with Solaris 10. That could definitely be interpreted > > > as "HP and Sun are getting commoditized out of the market, we need to > > > be bigger, let's join forces and customer bases". Smells like > > > consolidation to me. > > > > > > So why are Sun coy? They're not - they're naive/inept - they don't > > > even know they have software that plays in the area of SOA! Being > > > specific, there are various engineers who do know that but the sales > > > side of the organization can't see it, and can't guarentee to sell > > > boxes with it ignoring the fact that they could sell lots of software > > > boxes. Note also that all indications I have suggest that most of the > > > engineers don't get it either - they still inhabit a three-tier or > > > client-server world and can't/won't grok services and are still > > > building much of their software to function in that old world. > > > > > > Two cents from a techie, > > > > > > Dan. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Gervas > > > Douglas" <gervas.douglas@> wrote: > > > > > > > > We read quite a lot in this Group about Java and other non-MS > > > > technologies. And this depite Sun not being over-aggressive about > > > > marketing software, and doing even less for some of its Orphan Java > > > > technologies (how often do they bother to mention Jini, RIO, Jxta > > > etc.??). > > > > > > > > What we don't read or hear much about is what is going on in the > > > > Microsoft SOA universe. I know MS do not do much to push the concept > > > > of SOA, but a lot of SOA implementations take place in .NET > > > > environments. Most big organisations seem to have a mixture of .NET > > > > and Java. So what are MS doing about SOA middleware now that every > > > > platform vendor and his dog is offering an ESB? There is of course > > > > the spectre of Indigo on the horizon, but it is not readily apparent > > > > how this is going to fit into the SOA middleware scene. Do any of you > > > > have any information on this? Come to think of it, why are Sun and > > > > Microsoft so coy about these key aspects of their technology? > > > > > > > > Gervas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
