Microsoft Gives Up on Hailstorm 624
Dephex Twin writes "According to a NYTimes article: due to lack of 3rd-party support for Microsoft's "Persona" (originally codenamed "Hailstorm"), the company has been forced to dump the project. It seems the companies didn't like having a middleman between them and the consumers. As a person worried about the future with .NET, this is a bit of a relief."
Worried about .Net? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a set of services, including web services, that is designed to compete with Java.
Just because Hailstorm was to be implemented as a service of
Please get a clue.
damn bad timing (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt [*cough*] it seems like they jumped the gun just a bit.
After all they are just now wrapping up the one month security review they started back at the beginning of february. yep, that is still going on.
So this is a case where vaporware was not being bought at all, working against them instead of working for them.
.Net != "Hailstorm" (Score:1, Insightful)
It's kinda sad to see how uninformed some people are about what
It's been a long day in front of the PC so I'm not gonna bother explaining
But, needless to say, it would be a huge mistake to think that this is somehow related to the success or failure of
Cheers! They realized it was doomed from start... (Score:2, Insightful)
When Microsoft announced its requirement as part of future "e-business" and [forced] integration into their Office Suite and Windows workstation licenses the consumers and IT departments went crazy. Nobody liked the idea of giving Microsoft MORE control. After all, running IIS already gives "Hackers" (actually crackers) more than enough control
I can say though... EVERYONE that I know with an MCSE and/or works at a MCSP (MS Cert Solutions Provider) was in support of the Hailstorm idea.
I can't express it enough that I am happy for this failure
uninformed , ignorant, both (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, modular software design with interopable components and standard data storage techniques is an absolute nightmare! Somebody stop them!
Re:MS is running outta juice! (Score:2, Insightful)
The half-assed attempt at a console, also known as the X-Box, is surely just an investment for the future home entertainment systems created by Microsoft, but at the rate they're going there will not be enough cash on hand to take the losses normally associated with selling console systems.
It will be interesting to see how successful Microsoft will be with their current networking desires that follow their .NET and passport ideas, and whether or not these too will fail or just become immensely unpopular. Regardless, the deathly grip they hold on the OS market has yet to see a legitimate adversary, so it will be a long time before we see the complete downfall of Microsoft.
They'll just keep trying (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MS is running outta juice! (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, subscription licensing and
There just seems to be a groundswell of (shock-horror!) FUD against MS. Mom & Pop Win98 user are happy running MS's desktop OS, but let them run banking security? No way!
Don't get me wrong - Bill will find a way (e.g. X-box/consumer eletronics) to still make piles of cash and dominate a market - but I know of more than a couple of hardened MS-heads that are seriously considering alternatives. These are the same guys that swear by Win2k, Active Directory etc..
At risk of being modded down, you've gotta give the guy (Bill) credit. He's always got alternatives - and if not the sheer size of his cashpile will enable him to buy into the Next Big Thing (remember their late internet entry?)
Re:.Net != "Hailstorm" (Score:3, Insightful)
The service, originally code-named Hailstorm and later renamed My Services, was to be the clearest example of the company's ambitious .Net strategy.
Re:Perfect Headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Sheesh, I wish people like you would stop working for news media. I am a great supporter of the art of the pun, and the lame ones reporters always come up with really give the art a bad name. Please, oh please, can I read an article in InfoWorld about Java services that doesn't refer to some vendor "brewing" new solutions?
This time, M$ discovers that FUD is a 2edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, Microsoft is incapable of leading any kind of initiative that requires third party support. That would require finding third parties that trust Microsoft -- a dubious proposition indeed.
Microsoft Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Who do you think had the whole HailStorm idea? Marketing.
You can almost hear the conversation in the meeting
Marketing: "This will be great! People can log in from anywhere!"
Developers: "Yeah, that's technically possible."
Marketing: "Then Go! Go! Go!"
I imagine starting HailStorm and canceling HailStorm were topics of fiery debates inside the Fortress of Microsoft.
Finally a techno Exec probably said "This is stupid. Who is really going to sign up with us? Pay Microsoft to authenticate their users?"
One more thing....Figure out what
If not this market, then another (Score:3, Insightful)
Revenue for desktop operating systems is leveling out, so they are looking for the next cash cow. Right now, they appear a little disorganized because they're trying several things at once: Web Services, MSN TV, Pocket PC, and X-Box, to name a few. In particular, they're moving aggressively to expand the MSN brand (by partnering with / buying up ISPs.)
At any rate, Hailstorm is far from gone:
Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet (Score:1, Insightful)
That's gonna be sweet, too - imagine the day when you can compile an executable (not java bytecode) on a {Windows, Linux} box and then run that executable on a {Linux, Windows} box.
Of course, if it weren't for MS's crap, we would be saying of C/C++ "write once, compile everywhere" and none of this would be an issue. The fact that cross-platform programming is even as much of an issue as it is is a testament to MS's nonsense.
And no, I still don't trust
So you've used .net alot then??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, for very small definitions of anywhere. Anywhere will probably not even include all versions of windows (e.g. win98), and it certainly won't include much of the unix world for the forseeable future.
At least Java is somewhate widely supported on varying platforms. How does .NET even come close?
Don't be fooled, this is more vendor lock-in dressed up in sheep clothing.
Re:Registration (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure what hassle having every NYT submitter sign up for an account with a cryptic u/pw saves the world from.
Microsoft won't give up - DRM is coming... (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider: Hailstorm required the cooperation of other companies, who were reluctant for many good reasons to pay for the privilege of placing Microsoft between themselves and their customers. (Customers were also none too thrilled about the idea, either.) There are companies that might find Microsoft's desktop OS monopoly a sufficiently compelling reason to justify such a move, though - companies selling bits (media and software). Only Microsoft has the leverage over desktop users to foist user-hateful "digital rights management" technologies upon them. (I don't just mean technology to prevent copying of "protected" media, but also watermark detection/embedding, etc.)
Given a DRM system integrated sufficiently into the OS, some control over unauthorized data manipulation may be possible - at least, enough to deter most users. The legal billy-club of the DMCA (combined with Microsoft's practically infinite legal budget) is already in place to deter companies or individuals enabling circumvention, and patents are likewise in place to thwart competitors and open-source alternatives. When Microsoft's ubiquitous rollout of DRM is complete, they may be able to play to the paranoia of media companies desperately grasping for something, anything, to tame the very nature of the bit - to make it uncopyable. This again places Microsoft in the revenue stream (and customer data stream), but by offering something more compelling than mere data aggregation.
Their quiet backing of the SSSCA/CBDTPA is only the beginning, I think of this new push. Hailstorm was unappealing to companies and a magnet for criticism, but DRM leverages Microsoft's existing monopoly so I think they'll translate their goal of skimming off every transaction to this arena.
Just MHO,
-Isaac
Re:Worried about .Net? (Score:4, Insightful)
.NET isn't a set of services, some of which are web services. It's an umbrella term for all new Microsoft applications - and it's marketing. You have Office XP.NET -- you have Visual Studio.NET -- you have Windows .NET.
Sometimes, .NET means applications that compile (or whatever) to CLR. Othertimes not.
Sometimes it's about the framework, and the clean Win32 api as seen in .NET Windows Forms. Sometimes it's the next version of ASP that they've called .NET Web Forms. Sometimes it's nothing to do with the framework. Sometimes it's just SOAP.
More to the point however I don't particularly blame the people ignorant of .Net. Microsoft did an exceptionally poor job of explaining themselves (which I believe was marketing, and intentional).
The thing that I realised a few months ago is that the giddy hatred of Microsoft we all felt back in '99 is only now trickling down to the general populus. That Microsoft didn't explain .Net clearly allowed these people to fill it in with paranoia, and hate, and conspiracies.
There's no particular reason why a database of personal details is a bad thing. It's only because the world is starting to laugh at the latest security hole that it's bad.
I read a Microsoft interview once that software goes in trends, like fashion, like shoes. Nike are in for five years, and then they're unwanted for five. Good companies learn to go with the wave, and Microsoft understood this. They predicted that they would be unpopular until at least 2005, and they'd plan their products around that date. This is the date to watch.
Microsoft are on their way out. They'll still be important. With that ammount of the desktop they are assured that. But they're not going to be the first choice any more - at least not for a few years.
Re:nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Current versions of Microsoft software compete with previous versions.
For example, most of the differences that distinguish Office 97, Office 2000, and Office XP are just small features, none of which are compelling reasons to spend several hundred dollars a copy to upgrade. Probably most upgrading is done out of fear of being incompatible with other Office users, and even this fear is questionable, since despite the moanings about MS playing file format games, Office maintains pretty good backwards compatibility and can save files in Office97 formats.
Windows XP competes with Win95/98/ME. While WinXP is leaps and bounds more stable than the DOS-based Windows OSs, its hardware requirements are much higher as well, which discourages those with lower-end machines from upgrading. Most people are either just used to the instability of the DOS-based junk or don't stress the OS to the point that it's really a problem, so WinXP isn't so compelling.
Microsoft knows that its Office upgrades are offering less and less, so it's trying to switch to a subscription model, which many CEOs and CIOs are balking at.
Microsoft also is trying to diversify by getting into game consoles, but this path has been tough going, and most of MS's dirty tricks don't work so well in the console world.
Further, since MS pays its employees less than the industry average and compensate with employee stock options, MS has to keep its stock value rising at a high rate. Slow expansion or a mostly constant stock value won't do well. The Motley Fool had something on this.
Also, distrust of MS extends beyond just geeks. At the very least, hardly anyone takes the Microsoft name as a sign of quality.
There's no saying that MS won't overcome these problems, but it's not invulnerable, and the next few years, or even the next few months, depending on the outcome of Kotter-Kotelly's verdict, may determine whether MS continues to be the juggernaut that it is.
This is how it starts. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hailstorm was Microsoft's attempt to become the middleman in a wide range of web transactions. It didn't work, and for a good reason--companies don't like middlemen, especially those as powerful as Microsoft.
When you think about it,
Granted, Microsoft has put a lot more marketing clout behind
Re:MS is running outta juice! (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft's current multibillion dollar empire is built on the triad of Windows, IE and Office. Unfortunately for them, all three problems addressed by these applications have been solved by the current state-of-the art in software development. So much so that hobbyists have cobbled together free applications that are competetive with all of these.
(Well, almost competitive. Microsoft still jealously clings to the trade secrets that enshrine the compatiblity quirks in the file formats and APIs of their software. This keeps everybody else at a disadvantage for now. Oh yeah, they get free device drivers from sniveling hardware vendors, too. But none of this trade secret stuff has any intrinsic value to the user; it's just inertia.)
However, Microsoft is smart enough to know that basing an empire on obscurity and solved problems is a bad thing. Thus, they attempt these pushes into new areas. The problem for them is that just because they want to shift focus, there's no guarantee that anybody wants or needs anything else from them.
An example from history is passenger jets. If you asked the aircraft manufacturers back in the 1960's what people would be flying in the 21st century, you'd get descriptions of far-out hypersonic aircraft. In the real world, we still fly in planes that are dead ringers for a Boeing 707 from the late 50's. The aircraft companies just weren't able to evolve their passenger jet technologies very far beyond that point because of the physics and economics of the real world. SSTs, for example, were a total economic flop.
Aircraft manufacturing has not been a stellar field since the 1960's. The many U.S. companies in business back then have merged down into basically 1 survivor.
The aircraft manufacturers were lucky, though, because hobbyists can't produce and disribute knockoffs of their airplanes near zero cost. Microsoft might be in a bit tighter situation over the long haul.
Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet (Score:3, Insightful)
I can run
No?
Thank you, move along.
Re:.Net != "Hailstorm" (Score:1, Insightful)
Err...so because Hailstorm was built using
Hailstorm is a
Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice of you to quote the highest possible price per processor. We have SQL Server 7 licensed for two processors, it was expensive, but NOWHERE NEAR $20,000 per proc! I just checked the SQL 2000 licensing. Yeah, $20K per proc for the ENTERPRISE EDITION. This is like on Spaceballs where the guy orders the ship to go at "LUDICROUS SPEED!"
SQL Server 2000 is $5K per processor for unlimited client access. If you've only got 5-25 people accessing, it's less than that ($1K-$2K).
It's also not really fair to compare it to Linux/Apache/MySQL, as SQL Server 2000 beats MySQL on MANY fronts, including speed and options.
I'm no fan of MS in general, but SQL Server 7 is the best piece of software I've ever used, and I'm sick of the FUD.
I sitll support the paranoid people, because there is always the chance that M$ will extend and extinguish what it has embraced, but with them having submitted everything to ECMA, that's really an outside worry.
Ahh yes... an outside worry. More like even-odds!
Good luck, though.
Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet (Score:4, Insightful)
Really. And you know this before there was an implementation for more than one operating system how? At least Sun has some motivation to support more than one operating system; there's no particular reason for Microsoft to support more than Windows. I suspect that Microsoft will make sure Unix/Mac implementations exist for PR, and then go ahead with complete disregard for compatibility with them.
imagine the day when you can compile an executable (not java bytecode) on a {Windows, Linux} box and then run that executable on a {Linux, Windows} box.
Why is
with them having submitted everything to ECMA, that's really an outside worry.
Because Microsoft couldn't twist a standard, or omit important material from a standard or leave a standard vague in certain spots.
Re:MS is running outta juice! (Score:2, Insightful)
Once more people are used to StarOffice/OpenOffice the easier is to change the OS that run the productivity suite behind (Linux anyone).
Microsoft and the future (Score:5, Insightful)
And this certainly isn't the first time. We all remember when the Interent wasn't something MS was interested in. It wasn't big enough, if I remember Gates's sentiments. Instead, they were going to replace it with MSN, in one of MSN's many reincarnations. How many times did they reinvent MSN, each time diving into a new idea head on, only to find nothing there to grab on to? (Of course, this time, they're just buying out Qwest DSL, so it'll probably work just fine)
The half-assed attempt at a console, also known as the X-Box, is surely just an investment for the future home entertainment systems created by Microsoft, but at the rate they're going there will not be enough cash on hand to take the losses normally associated with selling console systems.
I'm not so sure about this. If there's one thing that we can be sure about, it's that MS is persistant to levels no other business can finance. They've launched programs and fallen on their face more times than most companies could ever hope to afford. Many would say that they've finally gotten Windows right, and it only took them 15 years.
I'm sure MS will get the X-Box right, even if it takes another 15 years, because when they do get it right, they'll have it all. Why bother with Windows on PC's when they can put everything; game console, DVD player, PC, all in one box that they get the revenues from?
It will be interesting to see how successful Microsoft will be with their current networking desires that follow their
.NET will happen, and it will succeed famously, at least in the Windows world. It's simply the next logical step for Windows development, even if we ignore the cross-platform and passport elements. The number of developers and businesses out there that declare anything made by MS to be divine gospel will see to that. Whether or not it's accepted by those that aren't followers of Redmond remains to be seen, I think, and I'm sure it won't come without a fight.
Sun knows fighting
Re:Worried about .Net? (Score:3, Insightful)
As a Java developer, I have some interest in
I can say that I'm worried about the future with
In other words, I'm afraid bad ideas like Hailstorm will kill the good ideas in
It's a relief for me that Hailstorm is given up. It's one less bad idea unnecessarily tied to
If that happens, either the Java platform improves to compete, or I get a better platform to move to.
Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet (Score:3, Insightful)
Try again in about 5 years. But by then MS will have moved on to the next big thing.
Re:nope (Score:2, Insightful)
Except for their mice, oddly enough.
Re:MS is running outta juice! (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but you're a pretty piss poor example of MS's targeted consumers. For that matter, your a pretty poor example for about 99.5% of the population. Assuming $12/DVD, you've got over $6000 invested in movies alone. Assuming $500/PC, $50/DVD drive, and $150/DVD player, you're around $10,000 in electronics. Not many people drop $15,000 for anything short of a car or house.
Well, you obviously hang out in different circles than most of the rest of the world. Samba and Linux are still not easy enough to install for a beginner, and even basic networking knowledge is difficult to find. I don't think anyone is worried about Samba file servers taking over the home market anytime soon.
Microsoft knows how to do one thing, but they do that thing pretty well. They create the demand for their products, whether in the minds of PHBs or in the minds of consumers. Developers are an afterthought, because they will follow the market...they haven't much choice. I don't think Hailstorm being dropped is the omen of MS's downfall, simply another failed attempt...they have many. But, in the end, their successes far outweigh their failures.
Did anyone know what Java was in 1997? (Score:2, Insightful)
Whenever a new set of development tools hits the street and everyone has a grand vision of what it's about. Sun wanted Java to turn web browsers into a universal OS -- that was the buzz when it launched, but today java applets are a web design faux pas. They wanted the world to be a beautiful OS-independent wonderland. It isn't.
Java has found other places to thrive; just because the original vision differed doesn't make it a failure.
--the verb
Re:.Net != "Hailstorm" (Score:2, Insightful)
Just cause Hailstorm was written as an example of
.Net is nothing special (Score:4, Insightful)
What, you mean suddenly I don't have to compile my java code in order to run my programs?!? AWESOME!
Get your head out of your behind for a second and think about what you are saying. See that part above that says "run anywhere"? "Anywhere" does not equal just the Intel x86 processor. Also, not all OSes use the same object and linking formats for runnable binaries even if the OSes both run on the same hardware architecture. What is the end result to you, the .Net user? A virtual machine or just-in-time compiler for intermediate bytecode! Funny, that's exactly what many Java implementations do, isn't it?
There is, in fact, a whole separate specification for just the Java Machine itself. That means that, in theory, it would be possible to write a compiler that could take other programming languages as input and output Java Machine bytecode. Wow! Just like .Net! How about that?! Amazing.
Sure, .Net binaries might be able to store pre-compiled versions of those programs for certain targets but that is just a caching problem, and .Net isn't the first system to do something like this. It's not really even a very difficult problem to solve.
I submit that Microsoft is merely re-inventing the wheel with their .Net stuff because Sun wouldn't play ball and let them extend Java any which way they wanted to. Big fat hairy deal. It's just one more standard people will get to choose from. And, as Andrew Tannenbaum said, standards are great because there are so many to choose from!
Re:Worried about .Net? (Score:1, Insightful)
this [yahoo.com][yahoo.com]. Its a joint venture between IBM,MS, and VeriSign to develop web servics security.
Re:My Services (Score:3, Insightful)
The same holds true about free software. It takes its time, but eventually it gets there with this type of program. They get finished, good enough, and eventually there is just a few features added now and then.
MS needs to switch to a subscription base or they die. The only buisnesses that can survive in the post-software-got-finished world are the ones on a subscription model, alternatively those in markets like games, buisness systems integration, services, etc, where the products dont ever get finished.
Microsoft has a rock solid grip on a dead market, partly killed by them, partly killed by the product structure, and they know it. That's why they need to change and make money in other markets.
Of course, nobody wants them in any other market so they're met with a blank wall of resistance from all sides. Maybe the other industries will manage to keep them in their glass box until their 'air supply' runs out.
Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet (Score:2, Insightful)
This is absurd beyond description. MS offers NONE of these and they've "beaten" Java? I think not.
I hate to be the little boy who cries "TROLLLLL!", but there's a slew of either trolls or very stupid people posting on this immediate thread...
Re:For once, perhaps marketing was a good thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to advocate
If you still want to claim that
Your comments about taking advantage of the X86 SSE2 instructions are also bogus. If Microsoft's
.NET (at least the CLR part of it, and if you don't know what CLR refers to you *really* shouldn't be advocating it) *is* a good idea. But it's a good idea for the *same* reasons that Java is - with almost exactly the same tradeoffs except that CLR gives slightly better multi-language capability (only slightly!) and Java gives slightly better cross-platform capability (again, only slightly! - at least if mono keeps up the momentum it has now).
It's always sad to see good ideas advocated by people who clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about. It gives *all* advocates of the idea a bad name.