Does this explain the vague rumours about a possible MBO on the software side?
Gervas --- In [email protected], "pamidi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 getting outdated, just as Detroit and the Big Three (or two-and-a-half) 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" <atmanes@> 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 gervas.douglas@ 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/
