Microsoft to buy Macromedia?
[1/6] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 25-Dec-2002 18:29
Hi, I have read strange news that MS is going to buy Macromedia ... they lack on scripting and X-Internet technology .... such coalition would be bad for us, wouldn't it? http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/28667.html The ColdFusion web application server is regarded as superior to Microsoft's Active Server Pages (ASPs) and even Santa Clara, California-based Sun's Java Server Pages (JSPs) because of its simplicity, power and completeness. ... interesting - so world is starting too see advantage in simplicity? :-) If it happens though, MS gains X-Internet, cross platform "scripting" and multimedia area ... too bad imo ... So, Carl, what's in the pipeline after steps 1) and 2) are finished? (SDK release, bug fixes) Where is Rebol headed? -pekr-
[2/6] from: steve:shireman:semaxwireless at: 25-Dec-2002 13:31
Petr: It sounds like good news to me, the pot buying the black kettle. MS can only fatten Macromedia, and make it worse, they have no idea how to move it forward. My guess it they only bought them because they thought Macromedia had some market they could keep. I predict it will give us all a better lead. If MS knew how to do something like Flash, they would have done it already, wouldn't they? When they bought WebTV, what good did they do there, besides sink the WebTV logo with the sheer weight of their name? As they sink / gut Macromedia / Flash, it eliminates Macromedia from the competitive landscape. Think of it as a Christmas present for us. Steve Shireman Petr Krenzelok wrote:
[3/6] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 26-Dec-2002 11:03
Hi Petr, PK> I have read strange news that MS is going to buy Macromedia ... they PK> lack on scripting and X-Internet technology .... such coalition would be PK> bad for us, wouldn't it? That depends; MS has the opportunity to alienate many existing Flash developers, even before they do anything with the product line. :) Those people will be looking for something new, so we may get a lot of them asking questions about REBOL if it happens. -- Gregg
[4/6] from: dada::gecko::verizon::net at: 26-Dec-2002 14:48
I'm not sure that M$ purchasing Macromedia is a good thing at all (whether it's true or not). I know that some of the REBOL listors are interested in propagating REBOL's a/v capabilities, but the M$-purchase of Macromedia doesn't necessarily make that possible. What it DOES do, is make it possible for Flash content to become FLash/IE content. It makes it possible for even MORE security holes (imagine a FLash MX/ActiveX security hole). It makes it possible for M$ to exert an even STRONGER strangle-hold on the Internet Content Delivery world, which makes it harder for third-party tech to come in without subscribing to M$ technology practices. And if anything, REBOL tries to be platform and technology independent. Overall, a purchase of the rights to Flash technology by M$ is a bad thing. I believe that in any instance a large company absorbs a smaller company. Less companies = more problems = less choice. sd
[5/6] from: chalz:earthlink at: 26-Dec-2002 15:38
> What it DOES do, is make it possible for Flash content to become > FLash/IE content. > > It makes it possible for even MORE security holes (imagine a FLash > MX/ActiveX security hole).
Flash trojans, worms and holes already exist. Nothing new, though I'm sure once it comes under the MS title, it will suddenly be re-discovered and touted about, even if MS engineers did nothing to it. A note on "If MS could do anything like Flash, they would have." Not necessarily true. Possibilities: 1> They already had a strategic alliance with Macromedia, and didn't want to step on their toes. 2> Copyright and patent infringement. Lots of people would let small things go, but when someone big, hefty and rich like MS does it, they'll look to get every penny they can. (Partially, I feel, because MS is rich, and partially as retribution coz MS has done it before.) 3> Because it's MS, lots of people didn't want to use it. (I doubt #3; however, there've been depressing number of people who WILL avoid a good technology, simply because it has the flying window logo. These are people who have no idea about the tech, but are prejudiced against MS in general.)
> Overall, a purchase of the rights to Flash technology by M$ is a bad > thing. I believe that in any instance a large company absorbs a smaller > company. Less companies = more problems = less choice.
Not necessarily. It actually can spawn competition. If you have a large share of a technology, but provide and service it poorly, others will try to come along. Around here, some people fed up with Nynex (now Verizon) started a localized phone company. Even with DSL service (Verizon and AT&T still haven't upgraded their hardware around here for it). Of course, it was hard and expensive for them to spread, so they've stayed small. A similar story for a local power provider against Niagra-Mohawk. It can be tough, though, as Linuxlovers have seen. It needs to offer an ease-of-use and compatibility that the megacorp offers. Linux's ease-of-use is still lacking, general support by the company is lacking. Compatibility with software and hardware is still lacking. I don't want a religious war. Yes, you can write your own drivers, you get community support, yadda yadda. However, that's not always practical. Community support never solved my 'circular forwarding' problem in REBOL - that only came about in a fix from the company itself. I'm also a software type; I don't do hardware. Someone else should write the hardware interface and drivers, and just let me do my thing. In any event, getting way off topic.
[6/6] from: chris:ross-gill at: 26-Dec-2002 17:13
> A note on "If MS could do anything like Flash, they would have." Not > necessarily true. Possibilities: > 1> They already had a strategic alliance with Macromedia, and didn't want > to step on their toes.
Hmm, strategic alliance by the convicted monopolists...
> 2> Copyright and patent infringement. Lots of people would let small > things go, but when someone big, hefty and rich like MS does it, they'll > look to get every penny they can.
This didn't stop them producing an alternative version of Java. Which addresses the whole point: MS did try something similar to Flash when they created said Java VM* -- it highlights their 'innovation' when they clone a technology with a view to crippling it instead of introducing fresh ideas. MS don't have a handle on the need for a lightweight approach to the x-internet, despite a slowly increasing consumer bandwidth. *similar in that Rebol, Java and Flash are all x-internet, albeit each with their own approach to implementation.
> (Partially, I feel, because MS is rich, and partially as retribution coz > MS has done it before.)
Ok, Java *is* the precedent I think you're alluding to. But still, MS have a history of plundering the ideas/work of others, I don't think they'd stop at Flash. Unless they really are feeling the weight of lawsuits.
> 3> Because it's MS, lots of people didn't want to use it. > (I doubt #3; however, there've been depressing number of people who WILL > avoid a good technology, simply because it has the flying window logo. > These are people who have no idea about the tech, but are prejudiced > against MS in general.)
Not sure what you're trying to say here, there are plenty of people (also in depressing, if not tragic, numbers) who will buy into bad technology just because it *is* MS (how else can you explain Windows or IE?). But your perceived snub doesn't explain why their best effort in this area is a duff version of Java. Though they may also cite Windows as x-internet due to its near ubiquity...
> It can be tough, though, as Linuxlovers have seen. It needs to offer an > ease-of-use and compatibility that the megacorp offers. Linux's ease-of- > use is still lacking, general support by the company is lacking. > Compatibility with software and hardware is still lacking. I don't want a > religious war. Yes, you can write your own drivers, you get community > support, yadda yadda.
I wonder if some of Rebol's problems could be solved by the other piece of MS news this week in the enforced bundling of 'official' Sun Java with Windows. Surely having Rebol/View or /Link already installed on a plain Windows setup would catapult Rebol to the top of mainstream computing. If Sun can force their way in, why not RT? - Chris