Why change the title from "Microsoft Readies For Another Big Tech Battle" to "Microsoft To Rivals: Take Your 'Open Cloud Manifesto' And Shove It". If you really want to get creative with titles and comments, start with Digg or Reddit. This is just plain depressing when people try to make up titles so that it sounds either interesting or religious.
Agreed. One of the things I like about this site is that most people avoid the inflammatory titles in favor of simple descriptive ones. That is not a trend I want to see fall out of favor.
I agree with trezor, this is the exact opposite of what I expected. MSFT's role in the actual story isn't very surprising considering the weak position they have in the Cloud industry.
No official word on who is behind the 'Open Cloud Manifesto', but I'm guessing that it will include some names like Google that will 'openwash' it, meaning to make it seem open by association rather than be open in fact.
Why do you think that Microsoft has a weak position in the cloud industry? If Microsoft really had a weak Cloud strategy, its competitors wouldn't be resorting to tricks like this.
I don't think anybody offers customers an easier self-hosted-to-cloud-hosted migration strategy than Microsoft. They are offering (or will be offering) all of their server-side products "in the cloud". Using Microsoft's stack, you develop your applications the same way, using the same libraries, and the same protocols, regardless of whether you are deploying to your own server or to Microsoft's. Most of Microsoft's competitors require you to rewrite applications to get them to work on the cloud.
Most of its competitors have very poor desktop integration, whereas Microsoft is integrating support for its cloud hosting directly into its its desktop software (including Windows and Office). For example, Windows 7 has a pretty sophisticated caching and synchronization infrastructure built into it so that desktop applications can work on documents/databases/email in the cloud with minimal latency. Microsoft Office already has built-in support for Sharepoint, which means that it has built-in support for Microsoft's cloud offerings (Office Live and Microsoft Online).
> Using Microsoft's stack, you develop your applications the same way, using the same libraries, and the same protocols, regardless of whether you are deploying to your own server or to Microsoft's. Most of Microsoft's competitors require you to rewrite applications to get them to work on the cloud.
The key phrase being "using microsoft's stack".
Open source versions of other cloud stacks are already somewhat functional. When they become usable, I can run them on my server.
I recall reading here that the project making an open version of Google's stack is being helped by google. If that is the case then it isn't quite the same.
Because it helps adoption of their API. They will be the premium provider for their platform, and the bigger it gets, the more business they get. Plus many businesses won't consider a technology that has only one vendor, so having an open alternative opens doors.
The original claim was that users benefitted from open alternatives. Is there any reason why users don't get those benefits if the "closed" source helps provide those alternatives?
I note that open alternatives to the Microsoft stack were seen as a good thing, yet alternatives to the Google stack are somehow second class because Google helped.
Is it fair to mention that some of the alternatives to the Microsoft stack were developed with some help from Microsoft?
He provides links to a Google Groups discussion, as well as another discussion board. No real details on what the manifesto is supposed to say, though.
It's safe to assume Microsoft felt said manifesto would not help them leverage their many monopolies to secure another one in cloud computing.
If one could be certain of something about the manifesto, its foundations are perhaps "too interoperable" for MS to feel comfortable "collaborating" with anyone else. They have a strong preference to embrace, extend and extinguish whenever possible.
Each and every time Microsoft considered interoperability seriously was in markets they were not sure they would be able to dominate. Interoperability, for them, is usually just a plan-B.
Microsoft flatly says "no" to the "manifesto" and throws down the gauntlet to its creators, demanding that the process to determine any open standard be debated openly, whether via wiki, conference, or some other method.
Even me, which works with and actually likes Microsoft's development tools and server platform, expected the complete opposite when reading that headline.
Not going to let bias or prejudice throw me off, all I'll say is that this could turn out to be interesting. I'd very much like to see the manifesto, and once published, Microsoft's reason for rejecting it.
One of the things to realize about Microsoft is that it really is not a cohesive entity. It's like a bunch of different companies stuffed under the same name with a minimum of common shared business infrastructure. So it's entirely plausible that one group would believe in openness and transparency at the same time as another group is suing over software patents.
