A solution looking for a problem?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| herzeleid Apr 06, 2011 3:53 PM EDT |
nt |
| tracyanne Apr 06, 2011 6:40 PM EDT |
Problem: How do we get Windows C# .NET developers to develop applications for Android? As it happens I know one Microsoft shop that would like to develop applications for both iphone/ipad etc and Android. This very neatly solves their problem. |
| herzeleid Apr 06, 2011 9:34 PM EDT |
I guess I'm wondering, with as popular as android is, taking the mobile market by storm, are we really so desperate for peecee developers to also start writing android apps? |
| tracyanne Apr 07, 2011 1:27 AM EDT |
I'm not sure WE are, but Novell has found a nice way to make money out of Windows developers, or development shops, who whould like to create applications for Android and IOS. |
| cabreh Apr 07, 2011 5:16 AM EDT |
Of course it could also be another way to open the lawsuite door for Windows versus Android. |
| tracyanne Apr 07, 2011 6:36 AM EDT |
roll eyes yeah of course, I should have realised we'd being hearing that old soft shoe shuffle from the paranoid fringe. |
| KernelShepard Apr 07, 2011 8:56 AM EDT |
cabreh: Please explain to us how developers using Mono in their applications for Android phones would open the *platform* up for patent litigation. Oh, wait, it wouldn't. To add to tracyanne's argument, the ability to target all smart phone platforms (Windows Phone 7 also runs .NET code and according to Miguel's blog a while back, they want to target Blackberry and WebOS too) using a single language, allowing them to reuse code for each platform, is likely to be very attractive for a lot of developers. |
| cabreh Apr 07, 2011 2:34 PM EDT |
@tracyanne and KernelShepard Interesting, since the possible MS patent parts (never declared safe by MS) were never removed from the mono libraries and if such actually get released with Android you then are open to legal action. Roll your eyes all you want. Right now MS is going after all the Android OEMs (or at least is starting now themselves) and as soon as they have enough precedence to back them up they will then actually go after Google for Android. Adding any other questionable software (by whomever) wouldn't be a great idea. Even if it's just the developers and user they attack. I for one have never seen anything that guarantees the Mono is safe. If you have such proof please provide same. Even if you are paranoid that doesn't guarantee there isn't someone out to get you. |
| azerthoth Apr 07, 2011 3:29 PM EDT |
I love the 'its possible' arguments ... it's also possible that a meteor will fall out of the sky and make me stub my big toe. Anything is possible especially in the litigious environment in todays business world. When dealing in reality, facts are always preferable over supposition, as the "MS Patents" are. Roll your eyes all you want. |
| tracyanne Apr 07, 2011 5:39 PM EDT |
@cabrehQuoting:If you have such proof please provide same. Unfortunately I'm not a Mathametician so I don't have proof of anything. Nor do I have evidence one way or the other, all I have is supposition, claim and counter claim, fear mongering and parania that I can realistically point to. Horrible hot smelly mythological place, I don't even have any assurance that any other software commonly used in Linux is safe. I just take it on faith that it is. Now back to the actual article itself, and the comment that started this. It is, quite obviously a Solution to a real issue or 2. That of 1/ being able to target multiple portable devices, and allowing Windows C# .NET developers to do so. So clearly it is not a solution in search of a problem. The owner of the Windows dev shop I know was very interested in the possibilities this opened up for him. |
| KernelShepard Apr 07, 2011 10:03 PM EDT |
@cabreh: Neither MonoTouch nor Mono for Android include the parts of Mono that are not covered by the Microsoft Community Promise (or some other patent grant, such as those granted by libraries licensed under Apache2 - e.g. the DLR which includes LINQ). Secondly, even if Mono for Android *did* include non-covered parts, Microsoft could not hold Google (or any of the handset makers) responsible for apps written by third-party app developers and therefore could not sue them. Duh. Thirdly, I have seen guarantees for large portions of Mono being safe (all of the ECMA portions + the DLR + ASP.NET MVC, MVC2, MVC3 and more), but I see no guarantees of any degree for any other apps nor platforms for Linux, do you? It could easily be argued that Mono is safer than anything else on Linux, especially if you define safeness by legally binding promises by Microsoft not to sue. |
| jdixon Apr 08, 2011 12:38 AM EDT |
> ...especially if you define safeness by legally binding promises by Microsoft not to sue. Ask the former Sun executives how much a legally binding promise by Microsoft is worth. |
| KernelShepard Apr 08, 2011 7:17 AM EDT |
@jdixon: a legally binding agreement is a legally binding agreement, they can sue but they're guaranteed to lose. That's what legally binding means. |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2011 8:02 AM EDT |
@ks: There is, I'm afraid, no such thing as guaranteed to win or lose in civil law, but your point is valid. People here seem to have pretty short memories, including the fact that Novell forced Microsoft into a $500 million dollar settlement in 2004 that was the "big stick" in the $350 million dollar IP-licensing agreement that gave birth to the MCP. |
| jdixon Apr 08, 2011 8:29 AM EDT |
> ....they can sue but they're guaranteed to lose. If you have the money to fight them in court. How many open source developers do? And as Dino points out, there are no guarantees when it comes to court cases. |
| KernelShepard Apr 08, 2011 9:09 AM EDT |
@jdixon: If that's the best argument you've got, then what's to stop Microsoft from frivolously suing any other Free Software project? Point is, your FUD is just that. FUD. Edit: btw, since when does Google not have the money to fight it? ;-) |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 08, 2011 10:02 AM EDT |
Quoting:Edit: btw, since when does Google not have the money to fight it? ;-) [serious] And for what purpose would Google fight to keep a MS technology and methods unencumbered? [/serious] YBT |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2011 10:12 AM EDT |
Hmmm. To make android more competitive? Duh! |
| jdixon Apr 08, 2011 10:29 AM EDT |
> If that's the best argument you've got, Best argument for what? I've made no arguments for or against anything. I know you're a Mono supporter, KernelShepard, and you know I'm not, but I'm not attacking Mono. I'm merely pointing out that Microsoft can sue anyone pretty much any time they want to, and could probably shut down a good chuck of FOSS development in the process. Whether or not there are any "legally binding" agreements in place has nothing to do with it. History suggests that depending on Microsoft's good will is not a wise course of action. Mono is in no better or worse shape than any other FOSS project in that regard. But suggesting that any agreements Microsoft may have put in place would stop them is unfettered foolishness. |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 08, 2011 11:28 AM EDT |
Quoting: ... To make android more competitive? [serious] Superficially your argument has merit. However, there a number of other factors to consider. Dot Net helps MS more than Google at this point and spending cash to support a technology that is skewed to the formers' advantage may not be money well spent. Moreover, Andoid has more pressing problems that Google might think have priority. There is any other aspect that may not be remembered, MS is really light on its feet when it feeds alternate code that screws the competition. I saw them do it to IBM, in this case they need make dot net work crappily on any platform other than genuine Windows[TM]. How? Easy just make sure Mono is a slow follower. [/serious] Paranoia, supposition, past behaviour, etc. are not valid predictors. Maybe, but MS is now pursuing unprecedented modes of attack that would seem patently illegal. However, these are laws going on the books in individual states in a country residing on the North American continent that is pressed between the Colossus of North (Canada) and the Oil State to the South (Mexico) simply because it is cheaper to buy off legislators at the state level. These laws make vendors (and any third party anywhere that have a business connection) a vendor's responsibility. That is, if any have pirated any MS code it is the vendor that is liable to fines and loss of the ability to sell their product in that state. Only hope (hah) is these laws conflict with Federal statues, meaning a ruling from the Supreme Court. Good luck with that. YBT |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2011 1:33 PM EDT |
@txtedmacs: Microsoft is looking "We're screwed" in the eye with .Net. So far, it's a one-platform pony and that ain't a good place to be in a multi-platform world. The explosive growth arena now is mobile and Microsoft is a near-total non-player. Apps are the name of the game in mobile land, and the best way for Microsoft to have a nice stable of apps should it ever figure out how to get somebody to build a Windows phone that people actually want to buy is to run apps developed for a viable platform using .Net. |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 08, 2011 2:20 PM EDT |
dino,Quoting:Microsoft is looking "We're screwed" in the eye with .Net. I hate you! And this damn machine refuses to put [serious] tags when I need them. So manually: [serious] MS has placed a serious bet on Norkia, a billion plus up front where it hopes for a late term payoff. Here in the States Norkia can be too easily dismissed, because they have not been popular. Elsewhere their phones have serious market share and credibility. With marketing being one of MS's fortes, it might successfully push the Windows Phone OS to become a contender. Moreover, while they need developers, they Microsoft, have never shown any compunction in screwing a significant fraction when their plans take a new tack. While developers help MS make money, the developers rarely contribute directly to a cash accounting category significantly. So do not dismiss neither MS nor its current form of dot Net. The former can still succeed while dispensing with the latter. [/serious] I am sorry I said anything ... can't we just have some fun? YBT |
| mrider Apr 08, 2011 2:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:Elsewhere their phones have serious market share and credibility. With marketing being one of MS's fortes, it might successfully push the Windows Phone OS to become a contender. I have to wonder though, how many people are telephone brand loyal - aside from the obvious Apple users of course. Will people purchase a Nokia telephone because it's a Nokia regardless of the O.S.? Or will people move to or from Nokia to a phone O.S. and/or experience they want. Although I disagree with this attitude sharply, I can see where an ordinary computer user might say "this is what I've always used, it's what I'm accustomed to, and it's where all my documents work, so I'm sticking with Windows". But with a telephone, it's basically a start from scratch with every purchase. If Microsoft has another Vista like experience with their telephone O.S., then I wonder if having the Nokia brand recognition will be sufficient. Not an answer I pretend to have, and probably somewhat rhetorical, but it will be interesting to watch. |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 08, 2011 3:23 PM EDT |
[serious] Regarding the MS & Norkia team up, time does not seem to be on their side. My gut instinct on their offerings requires them to deliver a winner either being so in reality or by induced perception. That is, a winning combination of hardware and software is a necessity to significantly impact this market. If either portion is perceived to be mediocre, there might not be a near term second chance. There are too many players with the leaders seeming to be pulling away from the bottom group. MS has the funds to survive even at the bottom rung and await another opportunity, but their image would be tarnished making a successful push later less likely to succeed. The better option for them if this effort stagnates if to look for an early entry into the " ... Next Big Thing." Or they might just win the legal battle where they are by statute required to sell X percentage. Watching their other moves, it could happen with some North American states. [Really, I would not bet against this happening.] [/serious] YBT |
| dinotrac Apr 10, 2011 7:40 AM EDT |
@txtedmacs It is one thing to place a bet and another thing to win it. Can you say "kin"? |
| hkwint Apr 10, 2011 10:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:I have to wonder though, how many people are telephone brand loyal It doesn't matter, because today's battle's is not about 'telephones', but about smartphones! Indeed, over here in the EU, Nokia here has been very popular for mobile phones. However, I think 'smartphones' is another market. People associate the term 'mobile phone' with Nokia. They associate 'smartphone' with Apple, HTC, and Samsung and Blackberry. Only those few who were lucky enough to have a Nokia N900 may associate Nokia with Smartphone, but probably those users (and the Maemo users) feel "left" because of the Windows-move. I think when it comes to smartphones Nokia even does have a bit of a 'bad' name, because it can't make up its mind about which OS to use, so all recent efforts have been half-baked. Just like Microsoft's efforts, half-baked as well. When adding two half-baked efforts, I'm not sure if the result will be 'fully' baked, or not baked at all, I think it will be half-baked again. |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 10, 2011 2:05 PM EDT |
Well Hans the 'half baked' characterization is past history and for Norkia it is true for its more recent products. The advantage that I see potential in this pairing is that MS (if they were sane) bought Norkia's exclusive focus on producing Windows' devices. Assuming the latter is true, they have a chance of success. I read that Norkia's smart phone efforts were not working, hence, their radical action of dropping essentially their own OS and focusing upon an externally developed offering. The earliest hint of success or failure will be the U.S. market, where they have little share. If it works here where MS and the Windows name carry clout, it may be an indicator they perhaps may not have produced an inferior product. While worldwide success is not assured, making a good impression in the U.S. could lead to greater market share elsewhere. Moreover, some fraction of the Norkia market will have buyers that just stick with that brand. Past history is not a predictor of current term success or of failure. We have to wait. I view the legal assault as a method to delay and hinder Android, giving some time for the Windows phones to appear. Delay could be just as fatal as poorly designed hardware or an OS that is either deficient or overly buggy. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!