Yeah, but then again, you don't get the fuel with the car either! At
the end of the day, a car is useless without the driver and the knowhow
to get it to where it needs to be. Same can be said for hardware - it's
useless without the software and the knowhow to use it properly.
Unfortunately, Sun only makes money from one of those three elements,
while other vendors, like IBM, make money from all three. Even
Microsoft knows that the hardware business is easier than the software
business - just look at how much they rake in with Xbox - which is
basically a hardware platform practically given away so they can
sell.... software. So, is it the car that should be given away to sell
fuel, or is it the fuel that should be given away to sell cars? I don't
think Sun necessarily has the upper hand here.
Ron
pamidi 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getting outdated, just as Detroit and the Big Three (or two-and-a-half)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" <[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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
__________ NOD32 1.1431 (20060305) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
__________ NOD32 1.1431 (20060305) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
--
_____________________________________________________________
Ronald Schmelzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Analyst
ZapThink LLC
Direct: 781-577-2779 / Main: 781-207-0203
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
