AOL vs. Microsoft in Desktop War?

loki29 was one of several people to submit this story at Betanews based on a supposedly leaked memo. Even if the memo is fake, the strategies outlined seem quite real and accurate - AOL/Time-Warner most assuredly is worried about Microsoft usurping their role in the "online experience" by presenting Windows XP users with lots of defaults set to "Use .NET".

Re:Programming tools vs. sites

C# is a language which is part of the .Net framework.

.Net is a development framework which includes CLR and all it's various languages, SOAP, etc.

Hailstorm is Microsofts strategy of subscription based content.

The original poster has a better understand than you do. :(

Programming tools vs. sites

I don't understand this.

.NET is still a vague concept to me, but one of the main guys behind it said that C# was analagous to Java the language, while .NET was analagous to Java the platform. I took that to mean the JVM and things like the EJB and Servelet standards.

My impression is that .NET is about tools to build and deploy sites. I don't think it's going to be a series of portals and content sites like MSN. I think that MS will use .NET to build new generations of MSN, but that other people can use .NET to build competing services if they want.

Again, I have only a fuzzy picture of .NET, so this could be off base, but I think that MS is trying to rebuild Java with a couple of key differences.

First of all, they're trying to duplicate their VB control model across languages and in a distributed fashion. I believe that .NET controls will be much easier to work with than EJB objects.

Second of all, I think they're going to really go to town with visual RAD tools. They want to make developing Web applications to be much easier.

Third of all, they want to put less of an emphasis on supporting multiple platforms (although I think they will -- at least things like XBox and WinCE, and probably OS X as well), and more of an emphasis on supporting multiple language syntaxes.

I wish an MS guy would post here or email me to clear this up, but I doubt it will happen.

I think the problem they have is that it's going to take years to tighten up .NET. There will inevitably be lots of loose ends after the early releases. And Java is here and reasonably solid now.

But MS is betting that they can manage a platform better than Sun. Java people complain bitterly about Swing vs. MFC, and about seemingly small things like printing support. So there's room for improvement. And presumably .NET will be tweaked for Wintel boxes, and will run much faster than JVM stuff.

I'm intrigued by the scope of .NET. They certainly did a lot of pimping of the word "innovation" during the anti-trust trial, but this seems to be genuinely innovative stuff to me. I'm not saying it will work well or that it will win, but it is a big vision, and it is a gutsy thing to try to roll it out. And I give them credit for it. And yes, I know that it's all about trying to keep their leverage. But it's still interesting technology.

Re:Battlegrounds

Perhaps the memo is faked and perhaps it isn't. But you have to admit this is a reasonable stance for AOL to take.

If the memo is true to the attitude of AOL/TW, faked or not, it seems like a good opportunity for somebody like Red Hat to step in and talk to AOL about moving things along for a "Linux XP" or something on that order where an AOL-focused Linux distribution is created.

There are tons of users who use their computers only to access America Online. They don't know what the other pretty icons on their computer are for. If you launch something else, like even a spreadsheet program, they will insist that you "hacked" something on their computer. I'm deadly serious, this is no joke.

Those users could be the key to bringing in people to the Linux desktop. Make it easy for those users and they will flock...and this will seriously burn into Microsoft's share of the home desktop market.

It's something to think about.

'I'm all right Jack' (was Re:Battlegrounds)

So why worry about all the other users. I just worry about myself. I don't use MS products heavily, so this won't affect me.

Don't be so sure.

The Web - and the 'Net - exist as they are today because they started life as open systems. Microsoft (MSN) and AQL both started off with closed systems for distributed content. They would both prefer closed systems. But the unexpected growth of the Net has persuaded them - probably temporarily - that they have to pay lip-service to open systems.

Currently, Microsoft controls the majority browser out there, and AOL control the other browser that most users have heard of. Netscape has a long history of inventing 'enhancements' to published standards which make documents written for their software work more poorly (or not at all) with other people's. Microsoft are also past masters of that art.

One of the quite possible outcomes of this is that the Web breaks up into a Microsoft-only space and an AOL only space, with no one browser able to access all the information, and, in the worst scenario, with open source browsers unable to access any of it. If methods of accessing the next generation Web servers from Microsoft and AOL are subject to software patents, this could become a reality, at least for users in the US.

Don't get me wrong - I think the best case outcomes from this battle could be very good for the open source movement, with many users seeking refuge in platforms on which they can't

be messed around by corporate interests... but this is a very unstable situation, and the difference between the best-case outcome and the worst is quite dramatic

Posted with Konqueror 2.1.1

Re:Battlegrounds

Heheh.

Red Hat: Millions of AOL users can't be wrong.
------
I'm a C++ guru ... What's STL?

Re:"stall" is the operative word

message to AOL members and the public that XP is "not ready" for broad adoption (i.e., has bugs, ...

Yeah, tell people Windows has bugs. That's always stopped them from buying it in the past.

---

Strategy takes advantage of user habits

These proposed strategies take advantage of known user habits (and although the memo is likely a fraud, I bet most of the items have some basis in truth).

Most computer users use EXACTLY what the computer installation places in front of them. Most users NEVER remove items from the default desktop, generally thinking that they may be useful someday and they will not be able to find them. So, if you own the default desktop and the default app settings, you own the computer business of the user.

Microsoft's .NET strategy is set to take advantage of this as well. Each six months or year you will need to update your .NET subscription for Microsoft's .NET services, like Microsoft Word and the operating system itself. They will take advantage of this at every step to push Microsoft and Microsoft only items, like MSN, like Microsoft Media player, etc...

The sad thing is, as the computer age matures, AOL's business model only looks stronger. Everyone believes that they will always be paying for ISP service, the same way they pay for phone service, electrical service... This revenue model stands in contrast to Microsoft, most of whose software could be replaced out of the box with Free Software without loss in functionality (excepting compatibility). Microsoft is trying to save their future, and AOL will own the world. As if they didn't already.

Unless Microsoft can break into the ISP market with substantial share, they will be reduced to a second tier player over the next decade.

.NET means different things to developers &. users

.NET is still a vague concept to me, but one of the main guys behind it said that C# was analagous to Java the language, while .NET was analagous to Java the platform. I took that to mean the JVM and things like the EJB and Servelet standards.

Developer View:
.NET is the next generation of Microsoft's component technologies (COM, COM+, DCOM) which incorporates lessons learned from Java. COM is a technology that allows you to interact with components written in different languages transparently and is descended from OLE (Object Linking and Embedding which is the technology that was developed to allow being able to drag an Excel spreadsheet into a Word document) and . The languages that support COM are the Visual Studio languages as well as Object Pascal (Delphi). COM has its own binary format and while works almost transparently from Javascript, VB, and VBScript is a bitch to work with from C++. DCOM is the same as COM but it adds being able to do RPC (remote method invokation for the Java heads) from components irrespective of what language they are written in, kinda like CORBA without the ORBs.

.NET simplifies this by having a Common Language Runtime which is analogous to the Java JVM. COMable languages simply compile to the CLR format instead of to assembly code or a weird binary format. So this should lead to the best of both worlds by giving you all the functionality you have come to expect from the Java platform with the added benefit of using languages other than Java (C++, C#, VB, Javascript, VBScript, Perl and a few others) and transparently interact with objects written in these languages. Because all .NET languages have access to the CLR they can utilize it to extend themselves, e.g. Visual C++ has "managed extensions" that allows for garbage collection via the CLR.

The major goal is then to use this technology to build XML based web services.

Marketting View:
Microsoft .NET is Microsoft's XML Web services platform. This is the next generation of Internet computing, using XML to communicate among loosely coupled XML Web services that are collaborating to perform a particular task. Microsoft's .NET strategy delivers a software platform to build new .NET experiences, a programming model and tools to build and integrate XML Web services, and a set of programmable Web interfaces. [microsoft.com]

--

Re:Tons on AOLinux CDs

If AOL were to do a Linux distro most likely it wouldn't be recognizable as such. The user interface would be as easy as a set-top internet box, with lots of pretty colors. While undoubtedly hackable, it would almost certainly be geared to the complete newbie. I think this would be a good thing, in that while none of us would take it seriously, it would increase the market share of linux, and hence decrease MS market share. Tschüß,

Mike.

In A.D. 2101, Desktop War was beginning

Bill Gates: What happen?
Microsoft: Somebody set up us the WinXP.
Microsoft: We get signal.
Bill Gates: What!
Microsoft: Product activation turn on.
Bill Gates: It's You!!
AOL/TW: How are you gentlemen!!
AOL/TW: All your OEM are belong to us.
Bill Gates: What you say!!
AOL/TW: You have no chance to launch make your time.
AOL/TW: Ha Ha Ha Ha....
Bill Gates: Take off every ".NET"
Bill Gates: You know what you doing.
Bill Gates: Move ".NET"
Bill Gates: For great profit.

Sorry, it was just too good an opportunity to pass up...

Re:Who says this is lying?

The XP screenshots I've seen all have little links such as "Buy Music" embedded directly into the Explorer.

Ignore the confusing marketing message of NET/Hailstorm/Passport. Recall back to Windows 95 -- where Microsoft built the MSN interface directly into the OS GUI. From here, it looks like XP is just another attempt at doing that, just updated for the times.

Microsoft can't grow with its current Windows/Office monopolies. That meanst they've been trying to do two things for some years now:

1) Crack the server market
2) Establish themselves as the consumer services (e-commerce) channel.

The answer to your questions is that if MS is successful, both server products and Hailstorm will be very profitable. They are both equally important to MS's long term future. They don't have a much of a connection, though, except for the magical marketing term of ".NET".

Re:Who says this is lying?

Okay, you are confusing things.

HailStorm is the MS-centralized DB of stuff. Everything you say in your post is true about HailStorm.

.NET though is much broader than HailStorm. HailStorm is like one tiny piece of .NET. I just read a whole shitload about .NET, and .NET is a set of servers, a set of tols, and a whole concept from MS (good or bad, lets not go there).

HailStorm on the other hand is specifically exactly what you think .NET is.

Do I have it right?
Just curious, thanks for the information.

Re:Battlegrounds

I agree. That's why end-users should exercise their power and choose not to us MS products or AOL products in any way.

Its called choice. But you know what, most MS users actually like MS products. Thats right, they think they are pretty good. Its true. Same with AOL.

We at slashdot moan about AOLTW and "M$" (thats really clever, btw) but the fact is, that the annonance of the problems with both companies isnt great enough to cause most people to switch.

So why worry about all the other users. I just worry about myself. I don't use MS products heavily, so this won't affect me. Do you somehow think you are the guardian for the other lowly "end users"? Are you somehow better than them? Are you a more sophisticated user, ready to battle the earth finding injustice and delivering peace and happiness to the end users?

Seriously, I watch out for myself, and choose not to use MS and AOLTW products. Thats my choice. I imagine you have made the same choice. But why force that on other people? Why would you and I worry about the conscious active choices that others make? Because they are different than yours or mine? It doesnt bother me to see others choose MS and choose AOL. Its a free country,and a free and open Internet. I am glad for them, if they find products they like at prices they are willing to pay.

I guess I am overreacting, but I can't stand the whole miasma of slashdot elitism. It just reeks of a type of paternalism that should have ended years ago. MS and AOL users arent lower forms of life, they aren't "lusers" or retarded in intellect, they just want to find the easiest cheapest way to do what they want to do on the Internet. Thats its. And if thats with MS and AOL products, then bring on the war. A war between MS and AOL can only be benefical to the end-user in the long run.

Alternate link for info

This was reported [theregister.co.uk] in The Register on Saturday morning. The article there is good, and has all of the juicy bits of the story.

Which is nice if Beta News gets Slashed. (all your hits are belong to us!)

Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip

Battlegrounds

I realize that this "memo" is most likely fake. However, it really made me think; although the memo may be fake, the mentality behind it may not be so far from the truth. What truely bothers me is that, with so much at stake, to what lengths will AOL/M$ go to win? And, where will the battle be fought? My guess is that most of it will be fought on the desktop of every AOL/XP user in the world. For those who have ever had the unfortionate privledge of installing AOL, you are all but forced to install Realplayer, Flash players, and all kinds of other crap that you may not want. And if you're not careful about reading all of the "Ok" boxes and check boxes, you will end up with AOL as the default for just about everything except picking your nose. What I'm getting at is will AOL/M$ be batteling it out on users machines for control, and how much control over their own machines will users loose in the process? This doesn't seem very fair to the end user, who's desktop will ultimately become the battleground for corperate power.

Re:Who says this is lying?

1) Crack the server market

Seems to me the IIS server market has been cracked quite successfully... *sigh*

Article Underscores Known MS Strategy

This is nothing new. Regardless of weather the memo is fake or legitimate, the article underscores the evolution of Microsoft's known corporate software policies.

Windows 3.1 was provided as an add-on PC productivity tool. Windows 95 was introduced as the primary PC productivity enviroment. Windowd 98 and ME were the frst steps in OS based network integration of the consumer PC.

Windows 3.1 cane with a few weak core apps and depended on 3rd parties for additional apps and services. With the advent on windows95, Bill realized that desktop realestate was a comodity to be sold and bartered with. Windows 98 and ME allowed for network integration which drematically increased the salable realestate using activeDesktop.

Windoes XP gives Microsoft the opportunity to sell internet based 'realestate' which is of course infinately more expansive. If, however a service is available locally, users are far less likely to make use of a remotely hosted or ASP based service (or the .NET services). While it was at one point in Microsoft's interest to sell off desktop realestate, they have now discovered that if they prevent the sale of that realestate, they can sell other realestate much larger, although slightly further away (ASP based services).

Again, this is nothing new. Microsoft realized that it is more profitable to sell extensive resources to users, than it is to sell pieces of a limited resource to vendors.

--CTH

--

Re:A chilling read...

This assumes that AOL could completely stall XP, rather than reduce its marketshare and allow an opportunity for alternatives to blossom.

I think probably the best thing AOL could do, if they waged an all-out campaign against XP at a time when Microsoft are pushing XP exclusively (remember, the current marketing plan has XP replacing both the NT and DOS series') is open an opportunity for PC manufacturers to ship PCs with operating systems other than Windows, and to do so in response to genuine customer demand. "You mean I can't use my AOL account with XP? Well, give me a PC with Linux", that kind of thing.

This requires AOL gets its house in order though and get their Linux, etc, clients working.

Right now AOL is probably the only company with the wieght to effect Microsoft's ability to make XP a complete success. Personally, partially because XP is probably the slimiest product MS have ever released, but mostly because when I go into a computer shop, I want to see a choice of platforms and choice of different computers to be standard, not frowned upon, I hope they succeed.

(None of this should be construed as meaning I either believe or disbelieve the memo this article is about)
--

"stall" is the operative word

"6) Stall XP Adoption: Until AOL can develop an appropriate XP solution, message to AOL members and the public that XP is "not ready" for broad adoption (i.e., has bugs, will not run AOL, will not run your existing software, will violate your online privacy, etc...)"

I especially like this one. Lying to consumers to get your product forwarded. I could just see a big Steve Case "Member Community Outreach" regarding the severe online privacy violations with XP, just after AOL parades you with ten sign-on ads and collects data on your web browsing (AOL "proxy") while moderating everything to hell.

Everyone seems to think Microsoft is the worst corporate technology firm with devilish, underhanded practices, but this is just outrageous.