Microsoft tells MVPs “we’re in it to win” — Really?

Look at my last post. Now read this one over on LiveSide. It’s a short report that Microsoft executives are bragging to MVPs that “we’re in it to win.”

I don’t think Microsoft is. The words are empty. Microsoft’s Internet execution sucks (on whole). Its search sucks. Its advertising sucks (look at that last post again). If that’s “in it to win” then I don’t get it. I saw a bunch of posts similar to the one on LiveSide coming out of the MVP Summit. I didn’t post any of them to my link blog for a reason: All were air, no real demonstrations of how Microsoft is going to lead.

Microsoft isn’t going away. Don’t get me wrong. They have record profits, record sales, all that. But on the Internet? Come on. This isn’t winning. Microsoft: stop the talk. Ship a better search, a better advertising system than Google, a better hosting service than Amazon, a better cross-platform Web development ecosystem than Adobe, and get some services out there that are innovative (where’s the video RSS reader? Blog search? Something like Yahoo’s Pipes? A real blog service? A way to look up people?) That’s how you win.

Oh, and Ballmer, if I ran Google your speech at Stanford yesterday would be plastered on every door on every campus Google has. Why? It’ll motivate Google employees the same way a coach will motivate an opposing team during the Superbowl by taking trash in the press. You’re up against a formidable competitor and one you’ve never seen before that has some real, significant weapons that you can’t deal with (and YouTube isn’t even close to it). Google’s secret weapon? It controls the entire stack in the datacenter. Google writes its own hard disk drivers. It has its datacenter hardware built to its spec. Ever wonder why Live.com is slower than Google? Hint: it’s cause Google is out executing Microsoft in the datacenter.

This isn’t Netscape you’re talking trash to, Steve. Have you really studied Google? It doesn’t sound like you have.

Again, Microsofties, you’d be better served not to talk trash until you have something YOU CAN SHIP!

I sure hope they don’t show up at Mix07 with this kind of “we’re in it to win” talk. The MVPs might be easy to talk into doing some cheerleading but the rest of us are over that now. We’re looking for signs of leadership and so far we don’t see it.

Sigh.

548 thoughts on “Microsoft tells MVPs “we’re in it to win” — Really?

  1. Microsoft is what Ma-Bell was. (We are talking worldwide now and then just the USA).

    The problem?

    How to cut up Microsoft, before it is devoured.

  2. Microsoft is what Ma-Bell was. (We are talking worldwide now and then just the USA).

    The problem?

    How to cut up Microsoft, before it is devoured.

  3. @103: You simply do not get it. Online gaming? Where is the fun in that. How does blowing up or shooting your opponents online provide healthy enjoyment and social interaction?

    I think Nintendo “gets it”. They understand that gaming is not about how fancy your games are or having the most FPS on an online network. Gaming is about having fun and that you can have the most fun by playing against your friends in the same living room.

    I have to say that the most fun I had playing any game was this past New Year’s Eve at Christine’s (girl next door). There was a decent sized group that stayed past midnight playing Cranium (a Canadian board game which combines trivial pursuit, charades and win-lose-or-draw). What made it fun was the social interaction. You cannot get that sort of game with online gaming.

    If there was console that I would buy for just a console, it would be the Wii as my first choice. The PS3 looks attractive as a Bluray player that happens to be a console as well.

  4. @103: You simply do not get it. Online gaming? Where is the fun in that. How does blowing up or shooting your opponents online provide healthy enjoyment and social interaction?

    I think Nintendo “gets it”. They understand that gaming is not about how fancy your games are or having the most FPS on an online network. Gaming is about having fun and that you can have the most fun by playing against your friends in the same living room.

    I have to say that the most fun I had playing any game was this past New Year’s Eve at Christine’s (girl next door). There was a decent sized group that stayed past midnight playing Cranium (a Canadian board game which combines trivial pursuit, charades and win-lose-or-draw). What made it fun was the social interaction. You cannot get that sort of game with online gaming.

    If there was console that I would buy for just a console, it would be the Wii as my first choice. The PS3 looks attractive as a Bluray player that happens to be a console as well.

  5. All this talk of Google being the next Microsoft is rubbish. They are nowhere near becoming this. It’s obvious. Just look at their market capitalizations. Google is valued at a much higher P/E and once it misses forecasted earnings, it’s going to fall like a ton of bricks. It doesn’t even have the potential to grow to Microsoft’s size. It’s a one dimensional business in a very competitive environment.

  6. All this talk of Google being the next Microsoft is rubbish. They are nowhere near becoming this. It’s obvious. Just look at their market capitalizations. Google is valued at a much higher P/E and once it misses forecasted earnings, it’s going to fall like a ton of bricks. It doesn’t even have the potential to grow to Microsoft’s size. It’s a one dimensional business in a very competitive environment.

  7. Really the bottom line for Microsoft is this; They are the once great giant who didnt change with the times. They havent completely ignored the security issue BUT what can they do, insecurity is built in to the OS because of its base. Nothing to fix there. You either put up with it or you switch to a Mac.

    Which leads me to my second point, people are leaving MS in droves for Apple’s Mac. Why? Because it just makes sense. I mean its a no-brainer. These Macs don’t and HAVENT ever gotten viruses, they dont get spyware, malware, they dont stop woring for no reason like PCs dod, they are just a stable, very beautiful way to do your computing.

    This is a common story in the world of business. Companies that fail to see where things are going fall away and become footnotes of the progression of their market. Its happened before, and trust me, it WILL happen again. Why ANYONE would use a Microsoft based computer is trylu beyond me. I mean WHY would you want to do something the hard way? Since Macs swicthed to Intel, they are as compatiable for Windows and Windows based programs as a true pc would be. There zero reason NOT to swicth to a mac and HUNDREDS of reasons to get the hell away from an insecure, unstable, and very expensive OS like Windows.

    Do yourself a favour, buy a Mac and you will wonder why the hell you didnt do it sooner. Much sooner. I know I did.

  8. Really the bottom line for Microsoft is this; They are the once great giant who didnt change with the times. They havent completely ignored the security issue BUT what can they do, insecurity is built in to the OS because of its base. Nothing to fix there. You either put up with it or you switch to a Mac.

    Which leads me to my second point, people are leaving MS in droves for Apple’s Mac. Why? Because it just makes sense. I mean its a no-brainer. These Macs don’t and HAVENT ever gotten viruses, they dont get spyware, malware, they dont stop woring for no reason like PCs dod, they are just a stable, very beautiful way to do your computing.

    This is a common story in the world of business. Companies that fail to see where things are going fall away and become footnotes of the progression of their market. Its happened before, and trust me, it WILL happen again. Why ANYONE would use a Microsoft based computer is trylu beyond me. I mean WHY would you want to do something the hard way? Since Macs swicthed to Intel, they are as compatiable for Windows and Windows based programs as a true pc would be. There zero reason NOT to swicth to a mac and HUNDREDS of reasons to get the hell away from an insecure, unstable, and very expensive OS like Windows.

    Do yourself a favour, buy a Mac and you will wonder why the hell you didnt do it sooner. Much sooner. I know I did.

  9. Microsoft priorities?

    Making Bill Gates rich.

    That’s it. Period. Full stop.

    Anything that doesn’t do that – like security, reliability, common sense – goes by the wayside.

    Look at the latest spin by Microsoft – Vista security holes are supposed to be rated down because Vista has more security features than XP!

    Oh, please.

    Then they roll out another Microsoft blogger with a comparison of security vulnerabilities between OS’s (using the same crap criteria that has been discredited a thousand times in the past). Guess who comes out on top?

    Why? Because Vista is going nowhere and OneCare is eating people’s Outlook emails, that’s why. So the spin machine rolls into action immediately.

    Let me clue you people in.

    ANYBODY at Microsoft who is allowed to talk to the public is a LIAR. ANYBODY. EVERYBODY.

    (Except that guy last week who described OneCare as “missing bits and pieces” and “should not have been released” – and he’s undoubtedly on the unemployment line this week.)

    Microsoft does not sell software. It sells LIES.

  10. Microsoft priorities?

    Making Bill Gates rich.

    That’s it. Period. Full stop.

    Anything that doesn’t do that – like security, reliability, common sense – goes by the wayside.

    Look at the latest spin by Microsoft – Vista security holes are supposed to be rated down because Vista has more security features than XP!

    Oh, please.

    Then they roll out another Microsoft blogger with a comparison of security vulnerabilities between OS’s (using the same crap criteria that has been discredited a thousand times in the past). Guess who comes out on top?

    Why? Because Vista is going nowhere and OneCare is eating people’s Outlook emails, that’s why. So the spin machine rolls into action immediately.

    Let me clue you people in.

    ANYBODY at Microsoft who is allowed to talk to the public is a LIAR. ANYBODY. EVERYBODY.

    (Except that guy last week who described OneCare as “missing bits and pieces” and “should not have been released” – and he’s undoubtedly on the unemployment line this week.)

    Microsoft does not sell software. It sells LIES.

  11. Mr Weller,

    These are exactly the kinds of hooks that cults used to keep people locked into place:

    1 – The mission is essential for advancing humanity
    2 – Taking all this abuse will be worthwhile, because the institution is finally reforming and can do its best work
    3 – The members are passionate and therefore righteous and I am among them

    Read Churches That Abuse or really any accepted work on cult mind control. Get out of there. At some level, you know you want to escape.

    Zeke

    1) I continue to feel that my job does good things for good people. I’m passionate about what I do and the product I promote to people
    2) I somehow believe the Microsoft culture will change in a significant way in the near future. Then again, I’ve thought that for too long now. Feel free to accuse me of rampant optimism.
    3) We have an ENORMOUS supply of passionate developers that are engaged in different technologies, doing really cool things

  12. Mr Weller,

    These are exactly the kinds of hooks that cults used to keep people locked into place:

    1 – The mission is essential for advancing humanity
    2 – Taking all this abuse will be worthwhile, because the institution is finally reforming and can do its best work
    3 – The members are passionate and therefore righteous and I am among them

    Read Churches That Abuse or really any accepted work on cult mind control. Get out of there. At some level, you know you want to escape.

    Zeke

    1) I continue to feel that my job does good things for good people. I’m passionate about what I do and the product I promote to people
    2) I somehow believe the Microsoft culture will change in a significant way in the near future. Then again, I’ve thought that for too long now. Feel free to accuse me of rampant optimism.
    3) We have an ENORMOUS supply of passionate developers that are engaged in different technologies, doing really cool things

  13. Robert: “maybe they ARE looking for me when they type Robert. PC World named me one of the most important people on the Internet. So did Forbes.”

    Mike: Every once in a while, the ego shines on through the rants :)

    ////////

    “Every once in a while”? Scoble aggrandizes himself in nearly every one of his blogs.

  14. Robert: “maybe they ARE looking for me when they type Robert. PC World named me one of the most important people on the Internet. So did Forbes.”

    Mike: Every once in a while, the ego shines on through the rants :)

    ////////

    “Every once in a while”? Scoble aggrandizes himself in nearly every one of his blogs.

  15. @ Dave 251,

    Makes a great deal of sense. I respectfully refer you back to my earlier comment 202, where I’m struggling to make a similar point in a more convoluted fashion.

    The venn diagram of the company and the venn diagram of Windows are fundamentally interrelated; formal systemic errors in one cause errors in the other.

  16. @ Dave 251,

    Makes a great deal of sense. I respectfully refer you back to my earlier comment 202, where I’m struggling to make a similar point in a more convoluted fashion.

    The venn diagram of the company and the venn diagram of Windows are fundamentally interrelated; formal systemic errors in one cause errors in the other.

  17. “Brian: I’m discouraged by people who assume that I made my name at Microsoft. I had more than 1,000 readers a day when I joined Microsoft. I planned conferences for programmers in the 1990s. I did a LOT BEFORE I was a Microsoft employee (and, was quoted in Time Magazine saying that Microsoft should split itself up BEFORE I was an employee).

    LOL
    Robert, when you were at MS, your blog carried some weight *because* you were at MS. Now, you are just another self-appointed know-it-all blogger (that in reality knows very little), and the only reason, the ONLY reason you get much of a following at all is because you were at MS. Believe me, your blog, objectively speaking, sucks badly. The writing is horrible, the topics are repetitive in the extreme, the layout is barebones. If not for your MS history, you’d have veryl little following at all.

    Sorry, but you are NOT Plato, Aristotle, or Socrotese. You’re nothing more than a blogger using your MS-history to give your word psuedo-gravitas. That’s it! Get over yourself, please.

  18. “Brian: I’m discouraged by people who assume that I made my name at Microsoft. I had more than 1,000 readers a day when I joined Microsoft. I planned conferences for programmers in the 1990s. I did a LOT BEFORE I was a Microsoft employee (and, was quoted in Time Magazine saying that Microsoft should split itself up BEFORE I was an employee).

    LOL
    Robert, when you were at MS, your blog carried some weight *because* you were at MS. Now, you are just another self-appointed know-it-all blogger (that in reality knows very little), and the only reason, the ONLY reason you get much of a following at all is because you were at MS. Believe me, your blog, objectively speaking, sucks badly. The writing is horrible, the topics are repetitive in the extreme, the layout is barebones. If not for your MS history, you’d have veryl little following at all.

    Sorry, but you are NOT Plato, Aristotle, or Socrotese. You’re nothing more than a blogger using your MS-history to give your word psuedo-gravitas. That’s it! Get over yourself, please.

  19. @251 by David Weller

    Sounds like Microsoft is a bunch of independent competing companies. We were told that this is what the public *wanted*. They wanted Microsoft split up in to competing entities and this would allow the best tech to emerge. But I guess they really do want monolithic companies to run everything.

  20. @251 by David Weller

    Sounds like Microsoft is a bunch of independent competing companies. We were told that this is what the public *wanted*. They wanted Microsoft split up in to competing entities and this would allow the best tech to emerge. But I guess they really do want monolithic companies to run everything.

  21. @248, So… you weren’t as influencial as an MS blogger as people made you out to be? I thought blogging solved everything.

  22. @248, So… you weren’t as influencial as an MS blogger as people made you out to be? I thought blogging solved everything.

  23. @192
    Wait, so Microsoft never even said, “We’re in it to win”? Then what’s the point of this blog entry in the first place (other than Scoble scoring brownie points with the “I hate Microsoft” crowd and engaging in the most shameful (and yet shameless) public narcisism I’ve seen in a long time with this “Forbes loves me” garbage)?

    Oh, and Scoble, why don’t you respond to post 192? You seem to let it go, not even bothering to alter your blog entry to reflect that Microsoft did not say what you claim they did?

  24. @192
    Wait, so Microsoft never even said, “We’re in it to win”? Then what’s the point of this blog entry in the first place (other than Scoble scoring brownie points with the “I hate Microsoft” crowd and engaging in the most shameful (and yet shameless) public narcisism I’ve seen in a long time with this “Forbes loves me” garbage)?

    Oh, and Scoble, why don’t you respond to post 192? You seem to let it go, not even bothering to alter your blog entry to reflect that Microsoft did not say what you claim they did?

  25. Robert knows me, the rest of you probably don’t: I’m an evangelist at Microsoft (Robert and I used to be office neighbors…hi, Robert!)

    ok, on with the commentary: Yup. Google is kicking our ass in search. Google is kicking our ass in damn near every space that we compete in. But their game consoles suck (so far :-). All joking aside, Ballmer’s quoted comments bother me too. So I decided to articulate some thoughts here. It’s all extemporaneous, so take it with a grain of salt.

    I think Microsoft’s inability to out-innovate Google is defined by three things:
    1) Engineering mindset. As you point out, Robert, Google uses cheap hardware and leverages the rest of the stack with internal work that is focused on their objectives. Google developers are empowered to create in a charming “primordial ooze” of creativity. We get to deal with 4-7 layers of “Program Management”
    2) Lack of “legacy”. Whether this be a customer-mandated compatability in Windows Vista so that their Windows 3.1 application works, or some type of (ethical) business practice blocked because of consent decree or government regulations (or business organizations — the Zune doesn’t suck because we thought it would be a good idea to make a sucky personal music player, it sucks [IMHO] because we wanted to have a good “business partnership” with the music industry): Microsoft has about a billion albatrosses (albatroi? abla…aw, hell, you get it) around their collective necks. You’re welcome to discount this, but I’ve seen it in EVERY org I’ve been in. Our future will continue to be haunted by the sins of our past.
    3) Confusing and/or competing “visions”. Microsoft culture grew up on the concept of competing products and objectives, the philosophy being that the market would choose the successor. This culture has resulted in several incidents where competing teams created solutions that confused customers, developers, and the press. Sometimes simultaneously. This problem continues today, and can often be found in products that appear complementary, but absolutely won’t work together (or the solution feel like a hack). Look at Windows Vista DWM/Windows Presentation Foundation/and DirectX as an example. I don’t see this culture changing. Ever. But I damn sure wish it would. Add on top of that the fact that our senior executives have to somehow tie together this loose array of 7-100 different product areas (depending on who you talk to), and they have their OWN agendas as well. Fun.

    So why do I still work at Microsoft, instead of just quitting and working for Google (or somewhere else)?
    1) I continue to feel that my job does good things for good people. I’m passionate about what I do and the product I promote to people (Hint: That would be neither Office nor Windows :-). I guess if I stop feeling that way, I’ll give Vic Gundotra or Carter Maslan a phone call now that they’ve gone to Google.
    2) I somehow believe the Microsoft culture will change in a significant way in the near future. Then again, I’ve thought that for too long now. Feel free to accuse me of rampant optimism.
    3) We have an ENORMOUS supply of passionate developers that are engaged in different technologies, doing really cool things (check out some of the videos on channel9.msdn.com, Robert’s old job). We’re just as capable of making the “next cool thing” as Google is, and we provide tools to help our 3rd parties do the same.

    David “LetsKillDave” Weller

  26. Robert knows me, the rest of you probably don’t: I’m an evangelist at Microsoft (Robert and I used to be office neighbors…hi, Robert!)

    ok, on with the commentary: Yup. Google is kicking our ass in search. Google is kicking our ass in damn near every space that we compete in. But their game consoles suck (so far :-). All joking aside, Ballmer’s quoted comments bother me too. So I decided to articulate some thoughts here. It’s all extemporaneous, so take it with a grain of salt.

    I think Microsoft’s inability to out-innovate Google is defined by three things:
    1) Engineering mindset. As you point out, Robert, Google uses cheap hardware and leverages the rest of the stack with internal work that is focused on their objectives. Google developers are empowered to create in a charming “primordial ooze” of creativity. We get to deal with 4-7 layers of “Program Management”
    2) Lack of “legacy”. Whether this be a customer-mandated compatability in Windows Vista so that their Windows 3.1 application works, or some type of (ethical) business practice blocked because of consent decree or government regulations (or business organizations — the Zune doesn’t suck because we thought it would be a good idea to make a sucky personal music player, it sucks [IMHO] because we wanted to have a good “business partnership” with the music industry): Microsoft has about a billion albatrosses (albatroi? abla…aw, hell, you get it) around their collective necks. You’re welcome to discount this, but I’ve seen it in EVERY org I’ve been in. Our future will continue to be haunted by the sins of our past.
    3) Confusing and/or competing “visions”. Microsoft culture grew up on the concept of competing products and objectives, the philosophy being that the market would choose the successor. This culture has resulted in several incidents where competing teams created solutions that confused customers, developers, and the press. Sometimes simultaneously. This problem continues today, and can often be found in products that appear complementary, but absolutely won’t work together (or the solution feel like a hack). Look at Windows Vista DWM/Windows Presentation Foundation/and DirectX as an example. I don’t see this culture changing. Ever. But I damn sure wish it would. Add on top of that the fact that our senior executives have to somehow tie together this loose array of 7-100 different product areas (depending on who you talk to), and they have their OWN agendas as well. Fun.

    So why do I still work at Microsoft, instead of just quitting and working for Google (or somewhere else)?
    1) I continue to feel that my job does good things for good people. I’m passionate about what I do and the product I promote to people (Hint: That would be neither Office nor Windows :-). I guess if I stop feeling that way, I’ll give Vic Gundotra or Carter Maslan a phone call now that they’ve gone to Google.
    2) I somehow believe the Microsoft culture will change in a significant way in the near future. Then again, I’ve thought that for too long now. Feel free to accuse me of rampant optimism.
    3) We have an ENORMOUS supply of passionate developers that are engaged in different technologies, doing really cool things (check out some of the videos on channel9.msdn.com, Robert’s old job). We’re just as capable of making the “next cool thing” as Google is, and we provide tools to help our 3rd parties do the same.

    David “LetsKillDave” Weller

  27. What’s this talk of Live being slower than Google? I’ve not noticed that. And I’m much more satisfied with Live search’s results than Google’s (but Yahoo has better results than both).

  28. What’s this talk of Live being slower than Google? I’ve not noticed that. And I’m much more satisfied with Live search’s results than Google’s (but Yahoo has better results than both).

  29. “maybe they ARE looking for me when they type Robert. PC World named me one of the most important people on the Internet. So did Forbes.”

    ——————-

    OMG.
    This blog just “jumped the shark” for me.
    Unsubscribed.

  30. “maybe they ARE looking for me when they type Robert. PC World named me one of the most important people on the Internet. So did Forbes.”

    ——————-

    OMG.
    This blog just “jumped the shark” for me.
    Unsubscribed.

  31. Hmmm…you were at Microsoft…saw these “sucky” issues…leave Microsoft….and now tell the world what’s wrong. Why did you try to fix them or at lease influence them? What a big tough guy! You’re lame.

  32. Hmmm…you were at Microsoft…saw these “sucky” issues…leave Microsoft….and now tell the world what’s wrong. Why did you try to fix them or at lease influence them? What a big tough guy! You’re lame.

  33. “Ship a better search, a better advertising system than Google, a better hosting service than Amazon, a better cross-platform Web development ecosystem than Adobe…”

    Uh…

    Remember Bill Gates in “Pirates of Silicon Valley”?

    Better. Doesn’t. Matter.

  34. “Ship a better search, a better advertising system than Google, a better hosting service than Amazon, a better cross-platform Web development ecosystem than Adobe…”

    Uh…

    Remember Bill Gates in “Pirates of Silicon Valley”?

    Better. Doesn’t. Matter.

  35. @223. “What gives at when it comes to the net?”

    It’s pretty simple, I think. It’s not shrink-wrapped software so they can’t figure out how to monetize it.

  36. @223. “What gives at when it comes to the net?”

    It’s pretty simple, I think. It’s not shrink-wrapped software so they can’t figure out how to monetize it.

  37. “Ever wonder why Live.com is slower than Google? Hint: it’s cause Google is out executing Microsoft in the datacenter.”

    Why is Google faster.
    1) Multiple data centers shipping data to users locally.
    2) All layer 2 back to the main data center (Gig-E feeds) via dark fiber.

    Average deployment between data centers is about 20k worth of servers.

    That is why thy are fast.

  38. “Ever wonder why Live.com is slower than Google? Hint: it’s cause Google is out executing Microsoft in the datacenter.”

    Why is Google faster.
    1) Multiple data centers shipping data to users locally.
    2) All layer 2 back to the main data center (Gig-E feeds) via dark fiber.

    Average deployment between data centers is about 20k worth of servers.

    That is why thy are fast.

  39. Reed,

    Exactly. If it doesn’t help manipulate the customer, tie him to Windows and support the MSFT hold-the-customers’- arms and nail-his-feet-to-the-floor marketing model, it is rejected. Which means MSFT has to invest years in trying to come up with its own crap to upset the development of usable technology already in the field and in organizing its own patented MSFT Hostageware.

    The marketing phrase ‘Where Do You Want to Go Today’ always made me break out laughing. It’s so obvious that what MSFT really means is, “Where the F*** Do You Think You Are Going?”

    It’s like Hannibal Lecter asking, ‘May I Serve You?’

    Zeke

    My guess is that MS wants to develop it’s own web-application stack– XAML etc. on Vista clients; MS-designed SOAP protocols; .NET apps running on Windows servers.

    Google and friends are getting there first because they’re using already-deployed technology: HTML, Flash, Javascript in any browser on the client; HTTP requests to get data; whatever kind of apps you want (Java, C, C++, Perl, Python, Ruby) running on Linux servers.

    Comment by Reed — March 19, 2007 @ 7:27 am

  40. Reed,

    Exactly. If it doesn’t help manipulate the customer, tie him to Windows and support the MSFT hold-the-customers’- arms and nail-his-feet-to-the-floor marketing model, it is rejected. Which means MSFT has to invest years in trying to come up with its own crap to upset the development of usable technology already in the field and in organizing its own patented MSFT Hostageware.

    The marketing phrase ‘Where Do You Want to Go Today’ always made me break out laughing. It’s so obvious that what MSFT really means is, “Where the F*** Do You Think You Are Going?”

    It’s like Hannibal Lecter asking, ‘May I Serve You?’

    Zeke

    My guess is that MS wants to develop it’s own web-application stack– XAML etc. on Vista clients; MS-designed SOAP protocols; .NET apps running on Windows servers.

    Google and friends are getting there first because they’re using already-deployed technology: HTML, Flash, Javascript in any browser on the client; HTTP requests to get data; whatever kind of apps you want (Java, C, C++, Perl, Python, Ruby) running on Linux servers.

    Comment by Reed — March 19, 2007 @ 7:27 am

Comments are closed.