Submitted by “Microsoft, apparently, is helping the folks at Mono to port Silverlight to Linux. This is good news, as the primary fear I’ve heard from developers is that Silverlight will be locked to Microsoft platforms and products. Microsoft has already committed to supporting Silverlight cross-browser on Windows, and has a version that runs on Mac OS X (which is even available from the Apple web site). The last step is Linux, and Microsoft is working with Novell and Mono to make this happen.”
I was listening to an interview recently on the DotnetRocks podcast with one of the main Silverlight guys at MS. They asked him about a Linux port, and he basically said there was a lot of demand from customers to be able to roll out Silverlight on Mac browsers, but not much demand on the Linux side. Most of the interest on Linux was being able to deliever this content froma Linux server.
Anyway, since the Mono guys are rolling out a Silverlight port on Linux, if I were MS, I wouldn’t even bother with a Linux port, even if I wanted to do it, if the Mono guys were willing to do the work for me.
I also was listening to an interview with Miguel (whatever his last name is) on the same Podcast a couple of months ago, and he talked about how his team rolled out a Moonlight prototype in about 3 weeks. Didn’t mention anything about MS helping, as I recall.
Edited 2007-08-14 18:07
You just touched on the most basic advantage that OSS has to offer. If Microsoft had a history with the OSS community (companies in that community too), and had simply open sourced their implementation (the mainline version, and with a reasonable license, one with patent grants or whatever, IANAL), they could have had this running on Linux, Firefox, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, you name it, with a lower compatibility failure rate (we’ll see how that goes) since it’s be the same code base, and could possibly have had it even faster (those Novel guys went pretty fast though, I have to admit).
Sun has figured this out. Adobe is starting to figure this out. When will Microsoft?
Running a mono runtime virtual machine to be able to run silverlight stuff.
This will defintely put a hurt on an embedded system’s ability to run silverlight.
mmmmm nope, Mono runs fine already in embedded
systems w/o problems, did I mention Cairo and GStreamer does it too?
The thing is, Silverlight is based around the .NET framework. So you need a .NET VM to implement Silverlight.
as apposed to an embedded system’s ability to run a hack web application(html,css,javascript) in a web browser?
Hey, that’s true!
Something like Mozilla may quite possibly use up as many resources or more than Moonlight, and it won’t give you the locally integrated application feeling you can get with Silverlight.
Unlike what? Flash and Java also need their own VM. And Silverlight is a subset of .NET, so it will be less memory greedy. And Moonlight is largely written in c++, so performance should be quite good even in low-power systems.
Now, being in bed with Microsoft gives a very uneasy feeling… But in this arena, they seem to be a much better bed partner than Adobe.
Since when has Linux been the final OS? What about the other Open OSs out there?
Mono and moonlight is open source. You should be able to run them on any unix like OS, with perhaps some porting efforts.
Let me just get permission from Microsoft first…
Why would you need Microsoft’s permission to run GPL/LGPL code?
Indeed. If he really wants to take into account the ‘sales and marketing PR part of it,’ hardly anyone in a suit has heard of *BSD. It’s all about that big generation gap thingamabob.
sorry but I have to ask…
WHAT other Open OSs out there?
Solaris ? (fair enough)
*BSD ? ( would probably xcompile but fair enough)
AmigaOS? heh, no
BeOS? lol atleast AmigaOS is still around. (and I was/am still a big fan of BeOS)
Haiku ? newp…
QNX? unlikely
hmm ok its getting harder now, what other desktop OS’s am I missing?
I jest really … but what other OS were you thinking of?
Of course they want help and get their new stuff used as broadly as possible. “Embrace, extend and extinguish” – let’s kill everyone else by being nice to opensource devs at the moment, and then drop support for competing OSes when we don’t need them anymore.
You know that phrase is absolutely meaningless, right?
How?
sure – tell it to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
“sure – tell it to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish“
Ahhh good ol’ Wikipedia: Where any idiot can post an article about anything they feel like writing about. The fact that there’s a Wiki on any given subject means nothing…I could write a Wiki about my wall color if I wanted to.
But i’m not sure the article about your wall will stay online 6 years !
how is it meaningless?
Embrace open source
extend open source
extinguish open source by making previous windows binaries incompatible with future releases…
I’m not saying they will… I’d just like to know why you think its meaningless?
I don’t think we’ll see that happening, MS needs all the help they can get to take on Flash.
I don’t think we’ll see that happening, MS needs all the help they can get to take on Java, Netscape, Visual Basic, ICQ and Real/QT all at one go…
Well, lets see what happened to them: Sun nearly went out of relevance if it weren’t so powerful in the network arena, Netscape just went bust, bought off by AOL and is still doing badly. Visual Basic’s development practically stalled since the change to .NET and MSN is still working on swallowing the entire young generation of ICQ/alternative users. Real is limping with the little who still know them while quicktime is also practically used with high-end and mac users. WMV and WMA dominates even the porn arena! Not to mention the standard mpg mp4 yadayada
I’m missing things here, esp the other important examples but those above are all done at the same time frame and yet, other than ICQ, the others practically lost.
I’m sick of fighting MS but hey — there aren’t many others to fight… I’d rather fight a couple of small companies than fight a Goliath, and yet there can still be people lamenting over that stupid Goliath.
Edited 2007-08-16 15:04
I have yet to mess with silverlight from a codeing perspective but it makes me wonder.
i have been seeing all these “web os’s” and a lot of them (while terribly unfunctional) have these great looking gui’s all done in flash. and that makes me wonder. what if windows 7 had a nice gui all done in silverlight. I mean how cool would that be. and then with the silverlight ports to mac and linux writing cross platform apps that used silverlight as a graphics toolkit or backend would be much easier and would have the potential to look very nice.
well those are jsut the thoughts going round in my head. i hope it happens.
My guess is that Microsoft is likely to make pulic statements which will make Silverlight de-facto illegal on every Linux distribution that doesn’t come from those who signed the deals (Novell). This way they’ll manage to achieve broader adoption of Silverlight, while actually preventing its use by most of Linux distributions, preventing adoption of Mono by other OSes, splitting the communinty, and spreading more FUD all over.
Doubtful – the big cruncher will be WMA/WMV support – without it Silverlight is pretty much castrated in terms of functionality. With that being said, however, if Novell use their brain they would integrate RealPlayer into Silvelight for mono so that it can access a wide variety of CODECs (2.0 of RealPlayer will support WMV/WMA on *NIX) without needing to pay royalties (that is taken care of my Real).
Btw, there is nothing stopping Red Hat or anyone else for that matter to sign up for a patent sharing agreement. Just because a few would rather kick dust in the corner than facing the reality that Microsoft is the big kid on the block, doesn’t mean that we should all suffer because of it.
OGG/Vorbis or AACS/MP4 would be better choices IMHO.
Which would still require royalty payments. I’d love to see Vorbis/Ogg but the reality is people love their proprietary formats, even if it yields no real benefit above the free alternatives.
Rubbish. People would be absolutely fine with royalty free ogg vorbis if they thought their system had it.
What actually happens if you try to play an ogg vorbis file on a default-install Windows system is that Windows doesn’t even try to get a codec (as it does for other formats) but rather it shows a message that ogg vorbis isn’t supported.
If you read that message casually, you might be lead to believe that Windows software actually couldn’t support that format, rather than the actual truth, which is that Microsoft doesn’t want you to use it (lest you become less tied to Windows).
You can in fact get an ogg vorbis codec for Windows.
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Vorbis_Ogg_ACM.htm
You can in fact get a whole free (as in freedom) media player for Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
… which will even play DVDs for you:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html
(now THAT is a cross-platform application)
… but Microsoft don’t want you to have such freedom, so you better not use it, hey fanboi.
Edited 2007-08-15 10:28
Hence the reason it will be supported in Moonlight (Novells Silverlight).
Unfortunately that is one problem, another problem is the lack of marketing of OGG/Vorbis and lack of distribution advocacy makes it not as visible as popular formats as WMA/MP3/MP4. If every OEM machine had OGG/Vorbis pre-loaded along with media players visibly advocating the format along with money by software distributors (like Red Hat, Novell, Sun) actually funding futher development and improvements – things would change.
‘fanboi’ – I wish you truly knew what boi actaully means, in terms of its origin….
Regarding the above, they’re the vestiges of Geekdom – unless they’re told about it by a friend its very unlikely that they’ll know about VLC. Thats the unfortunate reality.
… just as there is nothing to stop Microsoft from signing up to OIN:
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
and the patent commons:
http://www.patent-commons.org/
…. and then supporting open standards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium#Standards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
This outcome would be far better for every person on the planet … other than Microsoft.
Having pretend-open Microsoft-originated proprieatry pseudo-standards for web interoperability and cross-platform interoperability benefits no-one but Microsoft … and it introduces an un-necessary risk that Microsoft will establish the “standard” and then close out any competition (exactly as they have done repeatedly and consistently in the past).
Here is why we need Microsoft-sponsored-anything to be shunned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_independence
http://www.w3.org/2001/di/
It is a critical need to have a free market with open competition.
“the reality that Microsoft is the big kid on the block, doesn’t mean that we should all suffer because of it.”
You know, when I was a kid I wasn’t taught to bow down to the big guy and lick his boots, quite the contrary.
Has having a backbone become totally unfashionable?
i can make flash content in many oses what about silverlight ?
i can make flash content in many oses what about silverlight ?
Microsoft doesn’t need to port Silverlight to “many oses” to be successful. It just needs to put Silverlight on the competitive platforms (Windows, Mac, and Linux).
There’s already Flash, and of course Java (with JavaFX, the Consumer JRE, improved speeds, etc), both of which are fully cross platform.
If Silverlight does not achieve and maintain 100% cross platform capability, nobody will use it.
Web developers want to get the broadest possible audience, and even though both Mac and Linux have small market share, they are growing.
Web 2.0 is about open standards, and run anywhere capability.
If Silverlight does not achieve and maintain 100% cross platform capability, nobody will use it.
Silverlight is available for Windows and Mac (“Silverlight is a cross-browser, cross-platform plug-in for delivering the next generation of media experiences and rich interactive applications (RIAs) for the Web. The Silverlight 1.0 Release Candidate will auto-update to the final release.”).
See http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/downloads.aspx
Not true; there ae many technologies that are not cross platform and yet have a large marketshare. What dictates the success or failure of a given technology are the tools used in the creation of products based on the technology.
For instance, Windows might not be the sexiest platform in the world, but their developer tools are second to none, and coupled with the good documentation, good developer support – little wonder that, besides marketshare, people flock to using Microsoft development tools over Borland or Code Warrior.
What will decide the outcome is whether firstly Sun pulls finger and produces an easy to use JavaFX creation tool for the non-technically minded that is equal if not easy to use as Flash and Shockwave. For Microsoft they will have to do the same but unlike Sun which JavaFX alread uses the standard run time environment, it will require instalation of .NET framework (which is a hefty download) as well as the plugin required – unless of course they’re willing to pay OEM’s to pre-install it.
Excuse my ignorance if I’m wrong (JavaFX is like, the most unreported upcoming technology ever), but isn’t JavaFX closer to Adobe’s Apollo framework? A rich web app for the desktop.
Silverlight addresses problems which currently exist, such as as cool as AJAX is, it is not enough, and that while flash is fantastic at animations and content delivery, it is extremely kludgy to use for an application.
As for the VM, it is already on all XP SP2 and Vista boxes, which together already account for almost 85% of the desktop market. Silverlight itself weighs in at 1.3megs (at least on windows). The JRE on the other hand weighs in at 7.1 megs, and does not come preinstalled on windows boxes unless the OEM installs it.
You’ll find that Apollo is to Flash what XML is to Adobe PDF; its fixing up the limitations within Flash. As much as I would like to see Apollo succeed, I am not convinced until Adobe start actually treating *NIX customers (Solaris and Linux) like first class citizens.
Apollo however has one added bonus; it can be a stand alone application outside of a web browser; so it actually can act as a complete tool to write applications for rather than just small applications. In an ideal world Adobe would make Apollo players for Linux, MacOS X, Windows, Solaris and *BSD; they would port all their applications to Apollo and let the marketplace of operating systems compete based on which is superior rather than which has the applications available on it.
True, and Mono works with Solaris along with Linux and FreeBSD. If Microsoft concerntrate on the services they can provide rather than whether it is being run on a Windows platform – I think they would find there will be quite a number of non-Windows users happy to pay for those Microsoft services. Unfortunately, however, Microsoft does have a habit of being an asshole when it comes to the success of their technologies on another platform.
How is microsoft not providing services on other platforms? They are developing a mac port themselves, and working with novell for a linux port.
By virtue of extending Silverlight in the future and not adequately working with partners to provide the necessary information to remain compatible. A prime example would be the SMB changes recently in Windows and their refusal to disclose the changes as to allow compatibility.
Yeah, but the difference there is that SMB is an internal MS protocol they never disclosed, or intended to have disclosed, in the first place. Quite different from actively working with developers to make a solution on another platform.
Their official partyline is actually they want to work for interoperability with Linux and other vendors – hence their opensource/linux lab – the sad reality, all evidence from the outside demonstrates ‘business as usual’.
I would really love to believe a change in heart, but I would be convinced if I actually saw something which demonstrated that intent; BSD’ing silverlight source code for instance; allow royalty free licencing of the VC1/WMA CODEC to allow playback on non-Microsoft platforms.
It’s because MS submitted CLI to Ecma/ISO and released the DLR under Ms-PL that Moonlight was able to be implemented so quickly. VC-1 spec is available from SMPTE and is licensed through MPEG-LA. I doubt MS can make VC-1 royalty free as IIRC, they don’t hold all of the patents that cover the technology. There are licensed implementations available for Linux, though it’s not like licensing has been an implementation blocker for OSS in the past (e.g., MPEG-2, H.264).
There is a difference between being an open-source contributer and working towards inter-operability. IBM acts in the way you mentioned because they have completely shifted their model to something linux dependant. Since they rely so heavily on linux to make money, it is only right that they contribute, do patent grants, etc.
MS on the other hand makes no money from opensource, in fact, Linux is a competitor. It makes no sense to give away IP for no real reason, WMA not being able to play for 2.5% of the desktop world doesnt exactly hurt adoption. Working with Novell on AD is a very Big Thing for MS, and this new thing with Moonlight shows that it wasn’t just some fluke event. I hope this is a trend for them, as it benefits everyone else quite a bit, and it really doesnt hurt them that much. But I don’t expect for them to suddenly announce they will just start giving away their IP, any more then Apple announcing it is going to publish open specs for Carbon, or to open source quartz. If you havn’t already, you should read the CatB paper called The Magic Cauldron, where ESR explains how and where open source makes sense for corporations.
(http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/)
SMB is an internal MS protocol they never disclosed, or intended to have disclosed,
Sorry to be pedantic here. SMB (Server Message Blocks) is an open standard developed by IBM. MS used its embrace and extend policy to create CIFS (Common Internet File System), based on SMB, which is “an internal MS protocol they never disclosed, or intended to have disclosed”.
“Apollo however has one added bonus; it can be a stand alone application outside of a web browser; so it actually can act as a complete tool to write applications for rather than just small applications.”
There is nothing I’ve read which says that a web browser is the only way to host a Silverlight application, though by hosting it in a browser, you get the additional security sandboxing.
“For Microsoft they will have to do the same but unlike Sun which JavaFX alread uses the standard run time environment, it will require instalation of .NET framework (which is a hefty download) as well as the plugin required – unless of course they’re willing to pay OEM’s to pre-install it.”
Silverlight doesn’t run on the .NET framework, per se. The Silverlight plugin has its own .NET framework, which is anywhere from 2 to 4MB. It includes the whole CLR, but stripped down versions of the .NET libraries. It also includes the DLR (dynamic language runtime). So it’s not really a “hefty download”, not any more so than Flash or JVM.
And MS doesn’t need to pay anyone ro pre-install it. When visiting a web page with a Silverlight object, if Silverlight isn’t installed, the user is presented with at “Click here to install Silverlight” graphic.
The advantage of Silverlight is that it can use MSIL byte code compiled from any .NET language, or can use IronRuby, IronPython, Javascript, and VBx (dynamic VB) textual source code.
Edited 2007-08-14 22:33
“There’s already Flash”
Flash isn’t fully cross-platform and no gnash does not count.
It could be that Microsoft is preparing to get out of the operating system business (or becoming yet another *nix repackager/OSS exploiter like Apple), and is instead changing their focus to multi-OS technologies (Silverlight, .Net, etc.). The formula is pretty well developed these days: Provide ‘leadership’ to other people doing all the actual work and taking on the actual costs (like the Mono project), and then make sure you own the copyrights to the name so they have to go through you for licensing.
The old model of selling operating systems (expensive-to-develop high-quality products, high initial costs, free/cheap support, third-party support) isn’t that profitable compared to the new model (cheap-to-develop low-quality products, low/no initial costs, costly support, lockin/high cost of change) so an OSS Microsoft is almost a given at this point. Of course, using OSS in any circumstance is morally bankrupt, but nobody has ever accused Microsoft of being scrupulous.
I really don’t understand you at all. I don’t like OSS-flunkies’ continuous tone of superiority (because of course proprietary stuff is always better
) as much as the next person, but OSS is actually a great system for producing certain kinds of software. It’s perfect for people who do not have to make money off of selling the hardware.
The people who use OSS commercially do put a lot of work in it. This is because it’s always the case that the last 10% of polish takes 80% of the effort in widely-used software. Intel, IBM, Apple, Red Hat, and others hire high-quality engineers to work on OSS software. Apple does pretty good quality control and it can be argued that they spent their time very wisely by bundling an Open Source system software in MacOSX. There are many kernels out there of varying quality and a number of UNIX userlands. Mac OS happened to pick a really poor kernel, but the Apple engineers put work into producing a world-class rendering system and GUI experience, which is much harder and rarer than implementing a good kernel. OSS makes great filling from which the differentiate your product. The right kind of open source (BSD) does not harm the craft of development, but rather allows the craftsmen to do more interesting things rather than reinventing the wheel.
In my opinion, the GPL does harm the craft of development because it removes the hard trial by fire that the marketplace brings to software. When everyone can look at the code and lots of people can influence it, you don’t have the opportunity to have divergent implementations and you don’t get true diversity. For instance, one company might have a highly optimized implementation fo something that wins a particular generation of the battle, but their architecture is too tight for the long term and they can’t innovate enough for the next wave. In a non-proprietary world, the tight implementation would win and remain the defacto standard until it becomes just painfully inadequate (look at X11). And you also don’t get a true idea of what practices are valuable (best measured in money) and which are not.
To sum it up, I think OSS is great for a good number of things, especially to keep (or make) Microsoft honest. But OSS is not magical and does not deserve the level of adulation it gets from all of its spokesmen on this forum.
Microsoft will let people use Silverlight on all OSes even on Linux, then when everybody’s happy, it will change the rules and permit to run Silverlight only on Linux that belongs to those who signed the evil pact with MICROS~1 (Novel, Linspire). MICROS~1 never does something for free just for fun. It’s not a non-profit.
This is good news, as the primary fear I’ve heard from developers is that Silverlight will be locked to Microsoft platforms and products.
Still, people do not understand how Microsoft has operated over the past twenty-five or so years. Anything that Microsoft does on other platforms, such as the Mac (Office for the Mac, Windows Media etc.), is only done because it benefits Microsoft and Windows in the long run. Namely, they get people using their technology.
Once a critical mass of people are using their technology, you see any kind of support or even encouragement for anything on a platform other than Windows evaporate. Successive versions of the technology then become quite Windows specific as people move to new versions of a Microsoft directed technology and go with where the critical mass is.
Microsoft is not daft, and has been pointed out on umpteen occasions, they don’t do anything cross-platform willingly, nor without a benefit to them. Considering that Linux is of no help to them here, I’d be surprised if they were helping. The only platform of note to help them along really is the Mac.
Edited 2007-08-14 21:16
What’s the alternative?
With Flash/Apollo, we rely on Adobe to continue maintaining and distributing binaries for alternative platforms like Linux and Solaris. The free software implementation, Gnash, doesn’t look very promising as Flash moves beyond content to a part of a complete Web-2.0 stack.
I don’t think that JavaFX will see much adoption because of its new and unusual scripting language, which is inextricably bound to the declarative presentation component of the framework. If it doesn’t support JavaScript, it’s not going anywhere.
Like Adobe’s stack, Silverlight is based on an ECMAScript virtual machine that supports JavaScript as well as Python and Ruby. Like Apollo, the presentation markup is XML-based and independent of the scripting language. But unlike Apollo, there is a reasonably complete free software implementation of the runtime libraries.
Silverlight is simply the best Web-2.0 stack in all the land. It happens to be a Microsoft invention. But it’s extensively documented, and we have a free software implementation that is rapidly maturing. Yes, Microsoft drives the standard, and it will likely evolve over time. But the free software community is pretty resourceful these days. We can do a decent job of keeping up.
We have to face the fact that the free software community has no answer to Silverlight, JavaFX, or Flash/Apollo from a standards perspective. Either way we go, we’ll be following someone else’s standard. So we might as well follow the best one, even if it comes from Microsoft.
The only alternative is to stick or heads in the sand and ignore the evolution of the Web.
I think it is fair to go with any standard that has terms equivalent to these:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/ipr-notice-20021231
That is: royalty free, able to be implemented by anyone, promise not to sue.
Your goals in setting the standard should be these:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission
http://www.w3.org/2001/di/
http://www.w3.org/TR/acdi/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
If you can agree with those goals, then we (as in the computer users of the world) can go with your standard.
Edited 2007-08-15 10:53
“Still, people do not understand how Microsoft has operated over the past twenty-five or so years.”
Oh, but you do, right? Such wisdom is your sole possession. Everyone else is just too stupid.
“Anything that Microsoft does on other platforms, such as the Mac (Office for the Mac, Windows Media etc.), is only done because it benefits Microsoft and Windows in the long run. Namely, they get people using their technology.”
And Adobe and Sun ported Flash and Java to Mac, Windows, and Linux, because they didn’t want to get people using their tech?
“Once a critical mass of people are using their technology, you see any kind of support or even encouragement for anything on a platform other than Windows evaporate. Successive versions of the technology then become quite Windows specific as people move to new versions of a Microsoft directed technology and go with where the critical mass is.”
Please list examples, if you will. You should be able to list 20 off the top of your head with no problem.
“Microsoft is not daft, and has been pointed out on umpteen occasions, they don’t do anything cross-platform willingly, nor without a benefit to them. “
A for-profit company that does things for its own benefit? I’m shocked!! How evil!! *rolls eyes*
“Considering that Linux is of no help to them here, I’d be surprised if they were helping.”
Did you bother to read even the summary? The link to the info regarding MS “helping” is in the summary itself.
Edited 2007-08-14 22:53
Quite, and this is why Apple is doing the same thing – porting Safari, iTunes and Quicktime to the Microsoft platform, and vigorously selling iPods and iPhones, AppleTV etc., means that Apple is building up a critical mass of people using their technology. And Apple’s vendor-lock in extends to hardware as well as software, which improves their customer retention.
This is all good – the more Apple increases it’s marketshare, the more Microsoft will have to actually compete, rather than rest on the laurels of their near monopoly.
MS, Apple are publicly traded businesses, so of course their prime directive will be to take actions that make more money for shareholders. Every business on earth operates this way, and even the “non-profit” organizations still need to make enough of a margin to grow and reinvest in improving the organization, so some profit has to be made, and policies that increase the inflow of cash will be practised.
But MS is surely realising that the operating system itself is becoming less relevant – virtualisation and cross platform browsers are making the focus shift to application support and subscription services instead of selling software itself. That means cross platform collaboration becomes more of a focus point for Microsoft, because cross-platform compatibility will be more important than ever in a service, rather than product, dominated market.
“Anything that Microsoft does on other platforms, such as the Mac (Office for the Mac, Windows Media etc.), is only done because it benefits Microsoft and Windows in the long run.”
Wow, that sure makes them unique on the software market place. No wait, that’s how all big software companies work (including everyone’s “favourite” Sun).
is only done because it benefits Microsoft and Windows in the long run. Namely, they get people using their technology.
Hate to break it to you, but that’s how most companies work. They’re not in it for other people. They are in it to make a profit. Sure, some are much better at hiding under a guise of helping the community or whatever, but in the end it’s about profit. That’s not to say though, that certain things a company does won’t benefit the users and community.
Actually, for most industries, this is most definitely NOT how it works.
For most industries, there is a standard set that all manufactures must work to. Any example would be a telephone handset connection to the PSTN … no competitor is excluded, and no competitor is advantaged by the standard. All handsets connect to the PSTN and signal in the same way.
Petrol … a standard formulation from all petrol suppliers, works with engines made by any car manufacturer. Roads … all cars can drive on them. CDs … work on all brands of CD player. DVDs, FM radios, televisions, all sorts of things interoperate from different manufacturers, even mundane products like garden hose fittings.
Hate to break it to you, but you are in fact way off the mark here. Most companies do not work by locking out other companies products … most products have standards … true open standards … and that is, in fact, the very basis of free market competition. You must have companies competing to realise the benefits of a capitalist economy … if you do not have competition amongst alternative suppliers the whole “supply and demand” thing breaks down.
Consumers are supposed to be able to choose any of several competing products in the full expectation that their choice will work with products from another manufacturer that other consumers may have chosen.
If you don’t have this free choice in a given market, the system is broken. Sick. In need of fixing. It undermines the whole “free enterprise” economy.
Edited 2007-08-15 14:14
You need to learn to read. You didn’t even respond to my point.
It is. Corporations are in it for the money; they’re not non-profit entities.
Consumers set standards as they found one type of tech enhanced their lives. Once the market is established then other manufacturers jump in to claim their share of the pie. Industries generally don’t set standards as they want to corner a market; consumers eventually force a standard.
It’s chicken and the egg dude. There has to be a chicken before there can be a chicken produced egg. There has to be an established market first before companies start producing knock offs of the first product in the market.
The PSTN handset connection standard was set by the courts when AT&T was a monopoly. AT&T didn’t set that out of the goodness of their hearts. They were forced to by the government.
http://www.cclab.com/billhist.htm
Look for Hush-A-Phone
Gasoline was standardized on after a battle with electric cars where the internal combustion engine proved it was better. Once again consumers set the standard then companies sold to the market.
Roads are flat because it is too hard to make roads for square wheels. Yes, it can be done, but circles and flat roads are easier. This is just silly. It’s a law of nature that surfaces are flat. You might as well mention humans breathing air and drinking water. This is more on an example of us adapting to the environment.
Radio and TVs are good examples but there wasn’t technology at the time of their creation to lock people in to one manufacturer. This is more a function of the privative analog tech that became a way of life. In digital broadcasting, XM, Sirus, DirectTV, and Dish network use proprietary broadcast formats. The cable companies are resisting the open CableCard requirement because they don’t want to give up the lucrative cable box market.
CDs and DVDs are industry created standards. There wasn’t any free enterprise at work here though. The industry decided that they were going to move to those standards. There wasn’t a competing CD or DVD standard, so there were no free market forces at work here to debunk your last statement.
Lock-in, or brand loyalty as it is more commonly know, is the holy grail for companies. Just like drug dealers they want you coming back for more. Why do you think cigarette companies uped the addictive quality of cigarettes? Repeat customers.
What is the purpose of marketing aimed at children? Brand recognition which leads to Repeat Customers.
Why do video game console manufacturers use proprietary connections and hardware? Lock-in due to accessory creep, after while it becomes less attractive to jump ship.
Ideally yes. In the real world, buyer beware. Read the package and make sure it’s compatible with the product because there is no requirement for manufacturers to make their products inter operate with one another. If they can hook consumers into accepting their lock-in, eg. Apple, especially in the PowerPC days, then they are going to.
In order for what you propose to work, the consumer would have to standardize on one OS or the vendors would have to standardize on a set of APIs, like POSIX.
For the most part consumers have standardized on Windows. The programs they own will transfer from one Installation to the next for the most part. POSIX is a nice gesture, but apps still need some work to be ported to each operating system as they are all slightly different.
No. Not so.
Interoperability doesn’t require standard ABIs/APIs, it only requires standard, open, unencumbered formats and protocols (able to be implemented without advantage or penalty by any party) for digital data interchange.
Witness the situation with diigital cameras. I can take a photo on my “conforms to standards” digital camera, and because the photo information is stored in a standard way I can transfer it to any machine that understands the “USB standard” and the “JPEG standard” and get my photo printed.
Because of this there can be many parties competing to deliver me the best service to print my digital photo. This is an essential characteristic for having a free enterprise system. Anything that restricts this type of competition is anti-free-enterprise, and it leads only to bad outcomes for the people.
Interoperability doesn’t rely on having standard APIs or ABIs or having a CPU/OS architecture monoculture. All that is required is a set of standards for digital data interchange.
Edited 2007-08-15 23:49
You’re living in a perfect fantasy world. You’re not taking reality into factor. Interoperability often does work just based on standard ABIs/APIs. It depends on what the interoperability is for.
My guess is that Microsoft will happily do anything that potentially shafts Adobe and Flash, and if that means going cross-platform then so be it. How lucky for them all those nice folks at Novell are going to help. If the idea succeeds, of course, Microsoft will probably then start shafting those who are not using Silverlight on platforms other than Windows.
I wonder if Silverlight manage to conquer big market share , let say 75%, MS will do the same thing to help Mono project or not.
Or should I say , is MS going to help Mono Project to produce the GPL solution of Silverlight at same development stage compare to MS Silverlight.
By the time , maybe only Windows can run the latest Silverlight version 10.3 and GPL version only up to version 8.3 , a lot of new features are not support.
Then, MS can start to add in proprietary codecs support as the default format where GPL program cannot include.
Who remembers Internet Explorer for Unix and Internet Explorer for Mac?
Who remembers Internet Explorer for Unix and Internet Explorer for Mac?
I do remember the Unix version. I actually have seen it working once! For those that don't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for_UNIX
Microsoft will help with the port, wait until it’s a defacto, and then start allowing annoying little incompatabilities to start percolatnig in the other ports in a bid to remarry people back to their monopoly who may have drifted over to the alternatives. “Windows, the trouble-free Silerlight platform.”