Microsoft Goes Deep on Java with JCP Membership
thenewstack.io
thenewstack.io
Also, they've been doing very interesting things for the platform (a thread sanitizer IIRC). They'd be a stellar contributor.
If only Oracle could work on providing them legal-safe way to come into the community. Maybe by donating the Java brand to a foundation, and also enshrining the JCP process management into it?
So much good work opportunities have been wasted it's not even funny.
I would be surprised if that happen. Considering Google and most of the vocal Silicon Valley think of Oracle as evil. And Google is not a company that seems to be pragmatic about these sort of thing.
Google never showed any interest in being a member of the Java community with or without Oracle.
They are unlikely to bet big on Java.
Microsoft has realised that the desktop market is basically tapped out (they took as big a share as they ever will and it's mostly going to decline as computing changes, it'll be a long slow decline but the writing is on that wall).
So they've doubled down on cloud services.
Where this is a good thing is for them to run those services and for people to trust them they have to be mostly be good actors - if they piss off the big linux distro's/upstream (as an example) the damage could be quite severe and while each of the clouds is happy to lock you in they can't forcibly lock you in since multicloud is something the really big customers (the ones spending millions up) actually do require.
I figure that what open sourcing .net, typescript, the github, vscode was/is all about - they want to keep making the shovels in the gold rush.
If that is the case then I've benefitted despite never giving a cent to Azure :).
VSCode is nice and open-source core maybe, but most important parts like server plugins remain proprietary.
Found this about TypeScript, Guessing some times the people can change the company? Maybe? https://www.zdnet.com/article/who-built-microsoft-typescript...
Thank you microsoft, just don't do anything stupid to the great commons and trust you have build out over the last years..
They still act like a basket case occasionally (product of been a large company with divisions that don't always play well with each other) but they have been mostly playing ball and playing it well for years now, so they've earnt some trust.
Also TypeScript is Anders Hejlsberg and if I had to pick a hero under duress he's mine, he's written basically all of my favourite languages (or been the lead/architect).
* Turbo Pascal
* Delph (Object Pascal)
* C# (.net)
* TypeScript
First, what would MS do? Follow the Google approach and make a platform or follow the Apple approach and make a full phone?
Google makes a platform, leaving the major handset makers to provide the hardware, UI, and support. Google is not really making a lot of money on that platform, it only makes money from the playstore - say $10 Billion/year. That's nothing to MS. One can argue that the Google apps installed in android phones make some more money (e.g. maps, search), but those apps are also installed on iPhones.
The amount of money involved in the platform game is not really worth it to Microsoft given the engineering required, and android is a market leader -- MS would make a small fraction of that.
Of course MS could try to charge a lot for its platform, but with android being (effectively) free, it's not clear how this would work.
So then MS could get into the phone business and be a real hardware company. Here, I just don't see them beating Apple. They don't design their own chips. They don't innovate as quickly. Job's famous quip that MS "has no taste" is still true, IMO. There was a reason they exited this market, and it was that they couldn't compete in it. Not sure which of their most recent moves into cloud would suggest that this has changed.
Google makes android so they can stay the default search engine on the device in your hand and sell advertising so it can be revenue neutral or slightly net-negative and they don't care.
Microsoft would have to make actual money to make it worth it re-entering and it's not a high margin market (well not true, it has a high margin market but that's Apples side and good luck competing with them).
I disagree. It was the decline of PC laptop build quality that prompted MS to get into this game, after years spent vainly begging OEM partners to sell at least something whose build quality, finish, and overall appearance could compete with Apple's wares. And this strategy worked, as PC laptop build quality has improved a bit.
That market was huge and wide open for MS. But still Apple outsells them more than 4 to 1.
https://www.parkmycloud.com/blog/aws-vs-azure-vs-google-clou...
Too many services terminated or changed too often.
I've also read in the past their service and sales was diabolical.
Their market share reflects their reputation is my guess.
On a side note, in my region people go azure or aws or use one of local hosting service providers. GCP doesn't even get a mention.
I personally never experienced any services terminated, and it sounds unplausible that anyone would terminate a service that brings money. Especially major ones like GCS or GCE. I can only remember AppEngine's TaskManager (wasn't terminated, but refactored into Cloud Tasks, to be not AppEngine-specific). They probably terminate only services that no one pays for anyway. Maybe you've used Alpha-Beta features that were supposed to be changed/killed later?
> I've also read in the past their service and sales was diabolical.
Quite the opposite: Microsoft sales are diabolical. AWS also actively poaches all around the valley. I'd say Google is lacking behind mostly on that kind of marketing/sales.
Market share is a tricky thing: AWS opened up Cloud first, so it's not surprising to be #1. Microsoft had very strong presence in enterprises and government, so it was easy for them to onboard existing customers. Also, Microsoft counted Azure under "Web Services" category (together with online Outlook or Office 360), and it's not clear what share of that was Azure.
> in my region people go azure or aws
I feel for them as I think they fell into marketing charms. Because, technically, Azure is the worst, I'd never choose it. AWS is a strong choice (nobody got fired for choosing AWS).
Personally and professionally I've never used Azure myself. But I would likely choose Azure over GCP if I had to make a choice between the two. But maybe it's worth reevaluating.
My impressions are purely based on reading articles, news, market saturation data points and talking with people. I really have no intermit experience with GCP in the last 7 years.