[Ted] Okay, I admit it. I'm a software architecture geek, I've been facinated by the architecture of the Web ever since 1998 when I wrote "Reinventing Netscape," a report in which we described how Netscape used a revolutionary Web architecture to reach developers, testers, and users. The Web architecture that we described is now known as Web 2.0. I’ve been mum too long on on with Web 2.0 stuff.
I’m the first to admit that Google has done great stuff to advance the Internet as a gigantic database, library, and yellow pages. Great stuff, getting better. But does that mean Google will kill off Microsoft? I'd say no. Windows has a long and productive future ahead of it . . . as the standard (and beneficially available) operating system for rich Web 2.0 clients.
Let’s face it, Google has gotten a wonderful free ride on Microsoft’s investments in a standard client platform. Not the browser, dude, the PC. Without a gazillion PCs in consumers’ hands, we wouldn’t have a way to deliver Web 2.0 or anything else.
But in this Internet-as-infinite-resource world, do we need a fat client? Isn’t a browser and a gigantic server in the sky all we need? Sure, if you want a thin client, hafta-be connected experience. But consumers don’t. They want great stuff regardless of whether they are online or offline. And that means local storage and processing. And that means Microsoft Windows, at least today it does.
But Microsoft has plenty of work to do to make Windows relevant in a Web 2.0 world, starting with:
- The ability to synchronize with IP networks and server-side resources without having to fire up Windows, log on to anything, or spend more than 60 seconds in the vicinity of the network. Think about getting your email while walking from gate to gate. Or having that song you just tagged downloaded while waiting for a Cafe Americano -- half caff and extra room in mine, please. Vista’s Sideshow functionality is just the starting point to this kind of functionality.
- The ability to specialize itself to run on any client device I happen to want -- laptop, UMPC, smart phone, portable game player, mobile media slab, or Longhorn belt buckle. This will require componentizing (well under way) and packaging (not really happening) Windows so it can accommodate whatever specialized devices Sony, Logitech, Samsung, or Motorola wants to bring to market.
- The ability to run the kind of fat applications that make my life rich: iTunes, Outlook, Picassa, or Browser. Oh wait, it already does that.
- The ability to automatically synchronize all your stuff from wherever to wherever else. SharpCast is headed in this direction, sync for a Web 2.0 world. Microsoft should be encouraging them as much as possible.
Disagree? Let me hear you.
