Sun: Microsoft Monopoly Threatens Web Services Market

Discussions

News: Sun: Microsoft Monopoly Threatens Web Services Market

  1. Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's chief strategy officer told a U.S. federal judge on Tuesday that Microsoft threatens to transfer its Windows monopoly from the PC operating system to the Web Services market, essentially forcing adoption of .Net-based services, particularly Passport.

    Read Sun exec says Microsoft monopoly threatens Web services market.

    And a similar article: Microsoft .NET a monopoly threat: Sun.

    Threaded Messages (23)

  2. DOJ has been neutered since the cowhands'(bush jr.) been cross training as president. I don't expect the case to go anywhere. Sun would do better by releasing criminal dealings between microsoft and arthur anderson targeted at corporations.


    'Nuff said
  3. hmmm and what wants SUN? it's all about
    money and nothing else!

    gerhard
  4. Gerhard: "hmmm and what wants SUN?"

    It's not about Sun or what Sun "wants", but rather what the US government (by de juris and precedent de legis) is responsible for providing, which, while it may not be a level playing field, is at least a playing field in which established monopolies may not leverage their monopoly in one sector to monopolize another.

    One must suspend cynicism and look at the bigger picture, without particular malice or distrust, but rather with an objective and balanced eye.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
  5. +1
  6. This entire so-called antitrust trial has been all about a series of Microsoft competitors generating a lawsuit with no foundation. The legal basis for this trial all started with the browser wars. The assumption is that Microsoft unfairly pushed Netscape out of the market. Let's be honest and admit that Netscape is also to blame for their loss of market share. When they put out version 4 of their browser they made a horrible misjudgement and fell behind Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Microsoft was innovating with new technologies and Netscape was trying to keep control of spaghetti code that they eventually just threw out and started over. It is ludicrous to punish Microsoft for the incompetent strategy of Netscape.

    And now the trial has become a platform for a bunch of companies to take potshots at Microsoft since they have failed to win in the marketplace. Sun acts like .Net is a huge threat when it is clear both will coexist in the marketplace. Java will continue to be the enterprise choice and Microsoft will play well in the small to medium size markets. I find it laughable that Sun is so threatened when they have had a five-six year head start with Java and J2EE. Their complaints make me wonder about their overall abilities when they have to go to court to deal with Microsoft and the .Net framework.

    Instead of wasting time and money in court complaining maybe they should do what Microsoft does so well and that is look at what others are doing and move in the directions that make sense. Sun and and the J2EE vendors should realize that Microsoft has shown a glaring weakness in the J2EE market with their IDE, VS.net. You see that BEA, IBM and other vendors recognize that with their attempts to put out tools that make it easier to develop in the J2EE world. Sun needs to recognize that and stop worrying about how many new acronyms they can put out in a month. If they can succeed in making Java easier for low-end developers they have a real opportunity to grab a large share of the VB developer world. But that is going to happen when you have the likes of James Gosling insulting the use of IDEs for development and castigating low-end developers. Sun may think they are only about doing the "big" things, but they need to realize that it takes all types of developers to make a framework truly powerful.
  7. I disagree with your comment. In the browswer war, Netscape lost not because of their fault. Microsoft was offering free browswer in order to capture the market. Granted, the customers was PAYING for the development cost of the IExplore when they upgraded to Win98. That's the advantage when your company run the show, however, you can not say these law suits are with out foundation.

    As for Sun feeling threaten, I would say that Sun is smart and has learn from the mistake of Netscape. You didn't think Bill Gates step down from CEO to focus purely on strategy for no reason, did you?
  8. Hmm, some interesting points on both sides.

    But one should look at the VERY BIG picture on
    the horizon. Microsoft is set to compete with Sun
    within the Web Services arena - fair enough and
    that was more or less expected. However, Microsoft
    Web Services will be hosted on Win32
    platforms, initally.

    What should really scare Sun is Microsoft's move
    to Intermediate Language (IL) form -- the ability to
    compile all its languages into an intermediate
    platform independent form. Getting the big picture
    now?

    Won't be long before Web Services isn't the only
    emerging market MicroSoft targets. But for the
    time being that is where Microsoft sees its
    biggest enterprise Return of Investment (ROI).

    Another couple of years down the line and Microsoft
    will slip out translators of intermediate code
    to Unix platforms.....Solaris...

    Imagine running MS Word or Excel on Solaris over
    X-Windows!?! Hmmmm

    - Gary
  9. I don't think a useful port of .Net to any other platform than Win32 will be done in the near future. Look at all the dependencies the .Net libraries have on Win32. WinForms on Unix? Nice, but I'll have to see it before I believe it.

    Sure, Sun has a hard time making money of Java. But it is still a very powerful defensive weapon to prevent Miccrosoft from getting a bigger part of the server side of computing.
  10. The lawsuit is clearly without foundation. Netscape 4 was a horrible browser that failed to innovate. It failed to move on DHTML, style sheets and other areas. IT FAILED TO MAKE DEVELOPERS WANT TO WORK WITH IT! Netscape is to blame for their failure to succeed. Microsoft succeeded in getting developers and companies like AOL to move to their browser.

    And Sun should feel threatened by Microsoft and .Net. Sun keeps adding on APIs and further complicating the J2EE framework. The more complex it gets the more developers get pushed out and they will go to where they can develop and Microsoft has succeeded in creating a place for them.
  11. /* And Sun should feel threatened by Microsoft and .Net. Sun keeps adding on APIs and further complicating the J2EE framework. The more complex it gets the more developers get pushed out and they will go to where they can develop and Microsoft has succeeded in creating a place for them. */
    <P>
    Don't agree there, the APIs provides a standard, offers the developer more functionalies (and often examples) to write more useful apps (with better support) and also stops people reinventing the wheel. That's kind of good for me.
    <P>
    With regards to the lawsuit, if Sun can see what's coming from MS, what's wrong with sounding a warning to the umpire/referee (DOJ) ?! It does not mean Sun and the Java/J2EE will stop innovating their products/tools.
    <P>
    If MS .Net adheres to Web Services standards (big IF!), which enables interoperability with J2EE apps, then that is good news. I for one find it a complete arse to integrate Java/J2EE apps with MS Office/Exchange/Outlook products (which are common sources of data and presentation format for businesses).
    <P>
    Just my 2 pennies.
  12. William: "The lawsuit is clearly without foundation. Netscape 4 was a horrible browser that failed to innovate. It failed to move on DHTML, style sheets and other areas. IT FAILED TO MAKE DEVELOPERS WANT TO WORK WITH IT! Netscape is to blame for their failure to succeed. Microsoft succeeded in getting developers and companies like AOL to move to their browser."

    Microsoft paid customers to take IE. I don't know how that is considered "competitive". You cannot profit by paying people to take your products. So how is Microsoft profitable?

    Microsoft paid sites to support IE at the expense of Netscape, i.e. they paid sites to use IE-specific extensions, to state that the site worked best (or only) on IE, and to give IE users free access when Netscape users had to pay. How is that "competitive"?

    Microsoft put $150 million a year (their number) into IE development, while paying companies to take it. Netscape could have done just as well or better if they had unlimited resources (which Microsoft did, in relative terms).

    If Microsoft is allowed to repeat this activity in other arenas (which they currently are doing, such as with .NET) then they will be able to crush almost any competition. That is why it is illegal in this country to leverage a monopoly in one market into another. That is why Microsoft was found guilty, and found guilty again on appeal.

    I don't know what your interests are (for whom you work, what you are invested in, etc.), but stating that "The lawsuit is clearly without foundation" is ridiculous at best. The judge and the appeals court, not to mention the vast majority of high-tech workers at companies other than Microsoft and those that profit directly thereby agree that Microsoft is in the wrong, and something needs to be done to prevent recurrence (if not address past tort).

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.

  13. >Microsoft succeeded in getting developers and companies
    >like AOL to move to their browser.

    Whoa! MS got AOL to move to IE by agreeing to place an AOL icon on the desktop. How do you want to leverage your monopoly today?
  14. I agree completely with William's last two paragraphs. Sun and J2EE vendors should whine less about Microsoft and concentrate more on developing better tools for the masses of developers without an MS in CS.

    However, to claim in his first paragraph that Microsoft is faultless for its antitrust litigation woes is ludicrous at best. Their anticompetitive behavior is well-documented, and they are reaping what they have sown.

    But don't get me wrong. You can bet that if Sun had $38 billion in the bank and 90% of the enterprise server market, then this forum would be dedicated to writing Oak for the Sparc.

    -- jason
  15. Like other posters said before me, I think the lawsuite is not without foundation, quite contrary, Sun has all reasons to fear an illegal threat by Microsoft... they leverage their monopoly, and I think not only in the browser market but with many other things too (Media Player, DirectX (vs. OpenGL), MS Office, even SQL Server, ...).
    However, trying to do something on the legal platform doesn't, in any way, mean not being innovative, I think the Java community (not only Sun, as it is really Microsoft vs. the rest of the world) is quite productive, innovative etc., I think J2SE is better than .NET (.NET is more a competitor to J2SE, as someone else said, I can't find "competitive similarities" between J2EE and .NET), the often quoted IDEs are not only better (can't see where VS.NET is better than JBuilder, IDEA or Together) but I also have choice... and so on
    But I think Sun learnt from MS: attack the competition whereever you can, be it by delivering better products, taking them to court, ... I won't comment on whether this is good.

    regards

    Messi
  16. If Sun I worry more BEA derailing java for their own implementation means. Crossgain was MS. BEA now acting like MS. If you are partner I would not trust them. JSR 181 is very dangerous. It will mean BEA have monopoly web service in java. At least majority on weblogic platform. This JSR makes no sense. XML descriptors are better.
  17. Citigroup recently sign with Microsoft to use their passport service. In the article, however, it mention Citigroup has join the Sun aliance. hum....
  18. Sun better focus on their Java/J2EE strategy, continue pushing into web services and aligning the non-microsoft camp to provide viable business solutions in face of the growing momentum of .NET.

    Using the legal platform is possibly a useful tactic for somewhat delaying Microsoft's push but is in no way a replacement for providing a viable computing platform (i.e. real competitive products).

    -D


  19. This is a post I often repeat when this sort of topic comes up:

    It is more than *Sun* vs Microsoft.

    Dont forget that Sun is the only company that has no part of its business that is tied to Microsoft (IBM, Compaq, HP, etc all have significant parts of their business which would suffer in event of a conflict with Microsoft).

    --------

    Whether the challenge that .NET places on J2EE is real or imagined, it is the perceptions that matter - and to think that Microsoft dont leverage their desktop monopoly is naive.
    In reality, .NET provides little real competition for J2EE (moreso J2SE) (see discussion on javalobby.com).

  20. Nick: "It is more than *Sun* vs Microsoft."

    While that may be true in certain respects, do not forget that the rule of law itself implies a certain understanding that illegal behavior, in the end, affects us all, and to some extent, affects us all equally. Whether or not the Microsoft behavior impinges on our own personal wealth or freedom is irrelevant so long as it is illegal.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.

  21. Cameron,

    The point I was making was that Sun is the only large company that can afford to take Microsoft on. All the other large software companies (including IBM) are exposed - and would suffer from a conflict with Microsoft.

    In a sense, they are championing a cause that most other companies would support.... if they could.

    (Arent we saying the same things?)

    I think quite a few people dont realise why it is that "Sun" is the name that keeps cropping up in these cases that are trying to keep M$ honest.
    Its disappointing that rather than support Sun, most people complain. Some do have a case - that Sun needs to keep their eye on the ball - but Java/J2EE has a life of its own now (in addition, J2ME is taking off on small devices). It doesnt require Sun's nurturing anymore to maintain Java's strength.

    -Nick
  22. What are web services? As best I can tell, they are using http without using html for point to point communication.

    Is it the human readable persitance scheme that everyone is so excited about? Is it the fact that http is so widely used that people feel comfortable putting info over it that before would have gone over ftp.

    Integration is integration. Web services are one way to do it. There are many others.

    But if all we are talking about is xml as a marshalling scheme, we don't have much to worry about. Having had to implement OLE-DB in a previous incarnation, I am sure there is nothing in an xml based spec that will cause much heartache.


    Or am I missing something?
  23. Sun has expressed on multiple occasions that web services represent a potential threat. I think the interesting question is whether that threat is from Microsoft implementing standards-based software or whether standards outside of Sun's control threaten to wrest control of the application server definition away from the JCP.

    Greg
  24. You can't have a monopoly on a non-existent market for a worthless "technology." Or maybe you can. Microsoft is welcome to waste its time and money on pointless web services garbage.