

Microsoft Readies For Another Big Tech Battle - ekrangel
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-to-rivals-take-your-open-cloud-manifesto-and-shove-it-2009-3

======
azharcs
Why change the title from "Microsoft Readies For Another Big Tech Battle" to
"Microsoft To Rivals: Take Your 'Open Cloud Manifesto' And Shove It". If you
really want to get creative with titles and comments, start with Digg or
Reddit. This is just plain depressing when people try to make up titles so
that it sounds either interesting or religious.

~~~
ricree
Agreed. One of the things I like about this site is that most people avoid the
inflammatory titles in favor of simple descriptive ones. That is not a trend I
want to see fall out of favor.

------
pchristensen
I agree with trezor, this is the exact opposite of what I expected. MSFT's
role in the actual story isn't very surprising considering the weak position
they have in the Cloud industry.

No official word on who is behind the 'Open Cloud Manifesto', but I'm guessing
that it will include some names like Google that will 'openwash' it, meaning
to make it seem open by association rather than be open in fact.

~~~
briansmith
Why do you think that Microsoft has a weak position in the cloud industry? If
Microsoft really had a weak Cloud strategy, its competitors wouldn't be
resorting to tricks like this.

I don't think anybody offers customers an easier self-hosted-to-cloud-hosted
migration strategy than Microsoft. They are offering (or will be offering) all
of their server-side products "in the cloud". Using Microsoft's stack, you
develop your applications the same way, using the same libraries, and the same
protocols, regardless of whether you are deploying to your own server or to
Microsoft's. Most of Microsoft's competitors require you to rewrite
applications to get them to work on the cloud.

Most of its competitors have very poor desktop integration, whereas Microsoft
is integrating support for its cloud hosting directly into its its desktop
software (including Windows and Office). For example, Windows 7 has a pretty
sophisticated caching and synchronization infrastructure built into it so that
desktop applications can work on documents/databases/email in the cloud with
minimal latency. Microsoft Office already has built-in support for Sharepoint,
which means that it has built-in support for Microsoft's cloud offerings
(Office Live and Microsoft Online).

~~~
anamax
> Using Microsoft's stack, you develop your applications the same way, using
> the same libraries, and the same protocols, regardless of whether you are
> deploying to your own server or to Microsoft's. Most of Microsoft's
> competitors require you to rewrite applications to get them to work on the
> cloud.

The key phrase being "using microsoft's stack".

Open source versions of other cloud stacks are already somewhat functional.
When they become usable, I can run them on my server.

~~~
briansmith
"Open source versions of other cloud stacks are already somewhat functional."

That is the same with much (most) of Microsoft's stack.

~~~
Radix
I recall reading here that the project making an open version of Google's
stack is being helped by google. If that is the case then it isn't quite the
same.

~~~
anamax
> If that is the case then it isn't quite the same.

Why?

~~~
pchristensen
Because it helps adoption of their API. They will be the premium provider for
their platform, and the bigger it gets, the more business they get. Plus many
businesses won't consider a technology that has only one vendor, so having an
open alternative opens doors.

~~~
anamax
> Because it helps adoption of their API.

So?

The original claim was that users benefitted from open alternatives. Is there
any reason why users don't get those benefits if the "closed" source helps
provide those alternatives?

I note that open alternatives to the Microsoft stack were seen as a good
thing, yet alternatives to the Google stack are somehow second class because
Google helped.

Is it fair to mention that some of the alternatives to the Microsoft stack
were developed with some help from Microsoft?

------
ensignavenger
Reuven Cohen just posted about an "Open Cloud Manifesto" on his blog-
[http://www.elasticvapor.com/2009/03/introducing-open-
cloud-m...](http://www.elasticvapor.com/2009/03/introducing-open-cloud-
manifesto.html)

He provides links to a Google Groups discussion, as well as another discussion
board. No real details on what the manifesto is supposed to say, though.

~~~
ensignavenger
Reuven also posted a reply on the original Microsoft blog post (essentially
the same as what he posted on his own blog.)

------
pstatho
I have to agree with MS position here based on the the information that is
available, which isn't much. Just that only is problematic!

Sam Johnston's approach seems to be so much simpler especially for a startup.
<http://wiki.cloudcommunity.org/wiki/Main_Page>

------
rbanffy
It's safe to assume Microsoft felt said manifesto would not help them leverage
their many monopolies to secure another one in cloud computing.

If one could be certain of something about the manifesto, its foundations are
perhaps "too interoperable" for MS to feel comfortable "collaborating" with
anyone else. They have a strong preference to embrace, extend and extinguish
whenever possible.

Each and every time Microsoft considered interoperability seriously was in
markets they were not sure they would be able to dominate. Interoperability,
for them, is usually just a plan-B.

~~~
briansmith
In 2009, what does Microsoft have a monopoly on?

~~~
dsil
Desktop operating systems.

~~~
briansmith
Do you really think so? Apple isn't enough of a competitor?

~~~
rbanffy
Not at all in the corporate market.

------
ezmobius
The open cloud manifesto is full of hot air anyway so this is no surprise.

------
trezor
_Microsoft flatly says "no" to the "manifesto" and throws down the gauntlet to
its creators, demanding that the process to determine any open standard be
debated openly, whether via wiki, conference, or some other method._

Even me, which works with and actually likes Microsoft's development tools and
server platform, expected the complete opposite when reading that headline.

Not going to let bias or prejudice throw me off, all I'll say is that this
could turn out to be interesting. I'd very much like to see the manifesto, and
once published, Microsoft's reason for rejecting it.

~~~
felixmar
It will probably not be as interesting as this cloud manifesto:
<http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/manifesto/>

------
moonpolysoft
One of the things to realize about Microsoft is that it really is not a
cohesive entity. It's like a bunch of different companies stuffed under the
same name with a minimum of common shared business infrastructure. So it's
entirely plausible that one group would believe in openness and transparency
at the same time as another group is suing over software patents.

