Hey Joe, it seems that the emerging of Web 2.0 turn you into Microsoft Bash 2.0

I don't know the reasons of you to reject Microsoft 's attempt on new technlogy.

You are suck all the time, you are just doing arm-chair critics without much technical basis

Further , I don't see your comment on Windows Server 2008 and Hyper-V . Perhaps you yet to find any fault of it.

You are hyper-negative

I read the entire post and i *still* have no idea what this Live Mesh actually is...

It sounds like google apps with future google gears for offline sync-ness. Am i getting warm?

whatever wrote: "It sounds like google apps with future google gears for offline sync-ness. Am i getting warm?"

Definitely warm.

Joe

Joe - step back from the ledge. Seems like you are trying to drive traffic by being extreme. Best of luck to you.

Right, Peter, shoot the messenger.

Joe's comments are important. He has exposed Mirco$oft's latest strategy to extend its monopolistic practices, lock users into its proprietary formats and services, and suck them dry. I want to be informed of such threats even if you don't.

The truth is the truth, negative or otherwise. You would do better to realize where buying into the Micro$oft Empire will get you instead of sticking your head in the sand.

To Maddog,

Every business try to have all the market share they could possible reach .

I don't see Microsoft is evil and monopoly . It just happens that its opponents are pretty weak.

Sun and Silicon Graphics were rampant during 80' and dominated high-end comouting. Were they monopoly ?

Sun and Silicon Graphics were in fact Microsoft in history .. Think , if a company successfully run over Microsoft , do you call it evil ..

Looks like the author does not know a thing and especially what he is trying to talk about. Why do people even read this site... it's pathetic. No actual material, lots of errors.

Joe wrote " It's a bold strategy that pits Microsoft against the broader Web 2.0 platform"

Web 2.0 platform , are you kidding ?

Web 2.0 is just a trendy term , it is in fact carry not much definition !!!

"We may charge you a different amount than what you approved."

from Microsoft Service Agreement, section 7.2 Payment.

But of course you do..

"Microsoft isn't in the goodwill business. Live Mesh is strictly business, so can we just say that?"

I can't think of any company in the good will business. Not Google not Apple not anyone. Corporate shareholders make sure of that.

And you're comparing free live mesh with subscription based .Mac. There is a huge difference between the two. I realize Mesh will probably have a subscription version but there will most likely be a free version as well.

"Parasnis said that Microsoft will support Mac OS in the future. But why not now, if the platform is so open?"

This article as a whole came off as extremely negative. You seem to be just digging for conflict. Why in the world would support for Mac be a big priority. Because of their 2% market share increase? Mesh, currently only supports two versions of windows as well and doesn't yet support any devices. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's why it's in beta. I'm giving them credit for even stating that they'll support Mac in the future. That's big.

"Windows Live ID" will be part of "End to End Trusted Computing."

The question is not whether or not MicroSoft is "wrong" to want to extend its grip, but whether or not it makes sense for others to continue playing MicroSoft's game. It is true that MicroSoft successfully competed against strong competition. There is nothing wrong with that. It is also true that MicroSoft is moving to guarantee that no one else ever has a chance to competes with it, and that is a different matter.

On a side not.

Did facebook need to be "open" to create a great Web 2.0 platform or to skyrocket in popularity. No. They just created a great service. I look forward to seeing if Microsoft can do the same.

I think the strength of the Web that is often forgotten is that it is built on open publicly discussed standards. The successful Web standards aren't overly complicated so any developer can adopt them. These open standards that aren't owned by any one company are a key driver of the Web's success. I don't think this geni will ever be put back in the bottle and that the general Web community will ever accept a single company owning the infrastructure or standards that the Web are built on. If nothing else in the future it isn't going to be desktop/laptop computers that are the majority of web users, it will be much more diverse including things like iPhones, PS3's, other mobile devices, other devices (like digital cameras). Most of these devices won't run Windows and won't run .Net.

The .NET Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) is an "ECMA accepted" standard that runs on Windows, UNIX, Linux and Mac OS.

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm

Check out Mono and Portable .NET. These are different versions of the .NET framework that run on many operating systems.

Jim wrote: "Did facebook need to be 'open' to create a great Web 2.0 platform or to skyrocket in popularity."

Hi, Jim,

Facebook also has a services-based operating system that is much more closed than anything in Live Mesh. FaceBook doesn't fit my definition of a Web 2.0 platform company, either. Because of data lock-in, FaceBook really resembles early DOS/Windows--an operating platform in the clouds.

Today, I'll blog on why Live Mesh is more open than either FaceBook or MySpace.

Joe

It's hard to consider Live Mesh a threat to Web 2.0 when no one really knows what Web 2.0 is. A developer will tell you it's a rich web site - utilizing RSS, CSS and AJAX. Web 2.0 is a simple buzzword created by a book publisher (O'Reilly). Until Web 2.0 is fully defined and fleshed out, I suggest we wait and see what sticks to the wall. Microsoft's FeedSync, SkyDrive, LiveMesh, etc. will not be successful unless these solutions follows open standards and are compatible with all platforms and software. Compatibility only comes with standardization, however. Still licking their wounds from not following standards in the past, Microsoft is beginning to acknowledge them more than ever.

Joe - it's probably that your article is un-focused and confusing because MESH is hard to grasp. You say that Microsoft isn't doing anybody any favors and that "the Web won't be the hub. Life Mesh and the broader, supporting services platform is the hub Microsoft really envisions."

I don't think that's the point at all. What MESH is trying to do is give users (and developers) the best of both world's - applications and data that roam with the user and adapt themselves to the platform that they're using. If they're using only the Web as a platform they're probably doing themselves a disservice in the long-run but that's a choice users can make. But for those who own Macs or PC's or phones or set-top boxes or XBOX or PS3 or any of a myriad of other devices MESH has the potential to (gasp) allow users to benefit from the local processing power of those devices and use native applications without sacrificing the portability of data that the Web helps foster. Sure, a developer building an application that takes advantage of MESH API's is "committing to" those API's but that's no different than committing to any other technology that meets a need. Microsoft is undoubtedly betting that MESH will provide a lot of value to their customers using Windows on PC's or devices or XBOX etc. But that won't keep developers using other platforms from using the same technology to build better experiences for their customers.

Without something like MESH we're doomed to a world of the lowest common denominator. Moving everything the Web sounds like a horror to me. I want hardware acceleration. I want the performance I get with native applications. I want to be able to directly control my own data - at least some of it - by restricting it to specific devices rather than having it live on the Web (and on Microsoft's or Google's servers). I don't want to spend the rest of my life using AJAX applications. The Web browser as a platform on its own is the equivalent of the dumb terminal connecting to an IBM mainframe. The reason people liked PC's was that it freed them up from that world. I'd postulate that the biggest reason users are resorting to Web applications for everything is that the hassles of data synchronization/availability and the hassles of installing and updating local software aren't worth the effort. Those are not insurmountable obstacles.

I appreciate Joe going through this too. What might not be apparent to most people is how this is designed to undermine the www.

People need to be vigilant against such a strategy - a free and open web is necessary for us all.

Peter :"You are suck all the time, you are just doing arm-chair critics without much technical basis"

Err..and what are you critics "with much technical basis" against Joe comments "without much technical basis."?

Maddog :Right, Peter, shoot the messenger.
Truth.

Anyone hear of Notes? It is a proprietary technology, but the database can be synchronised across multiple servers, and each user's subset can sync across multiple clients: Windows, Mac, Linux and soon iPhone. On each client you can choose what you sync - Email, PIM info, teamrooms, databases.

Wow, lot of ad-hominum attacks here from people who seemingly think MS can do no wrong. Newsflash, no such thing as a perfect corporation - get over it and move on :-)

@Mike, you should check this out. Sounds like you'd know what LND stands for.

Gah - no html in comments!
http://www.alanlepofsky.net/alepofsky/alanblog.nsf/dx/introducing-a-revolutionary-software-platform

one company 'OWN' the net where will the innovation go? well just look at linux and I personally don't like linux for the simple fact most of my apps won't run on it but I think its a great idea totally free and open (hence the reason most of my apps won't run on it Windows is proprietary)
But, back to the subject if you let any one company run the web they own you,watch you and profit from you. don't like paying them in addition to your service provider too bad they will just shut down your software and what will your router be then a paperweight?]

Now maybe I'm just too cynical you know Microsoft is just a company trying to make a profit, I suppose OIL companies are just trying to make a profit too look where that is getting us.

Goddamn this post is stupid.

"Live Mesh is so messy to explain, I can't cover everything in this post. But simply: Microsoft is launching a synchronization platform [...]". That's not messy! You hit the nail on the head! It's a synchonization platform!

"This mesh of services compromises the overlaying platform, which is supported by proprietary Microsoft APIs". Yes they made their own APIs. Bastards! Cmon Joe, Youtube, Google, Facebook, Digg etc. etc. make their own APIs. How can this possibly be an evil move from Microsoft? They're even based on HTTP, RSS, REST, ATOM, FeedSync and JSON!

"Throughout today, Microsoft product managers will prattle on about how Live Mesh delivers a great experience in a Web browser. It's accessible from anywhere, they'll say. But that's a misdirection..." NO! It IS available from anywhere. And you continue " ... Developers must commit to the Mesh platform, proprietary APIs and run-time, a services-based primary operating system, and Windows as a secondary platform." Developers can utilize Live Mesh if they want to but no one forces them to! They can just continue developing applications just like today without Live Mesh. But you have to admit an application that is able to sync across many devices used by the consumer is kind of a neat feature. The consumers will benefit from this. The more competition in this field the better. I can't wait to see Google's response to this. They might even come up with something better.

"Present day, Live Mesh doesn't come anywhere near the synchronization vision outlined by Ozzie. The synchronization starts and stops with files, which are stored in a Live Mesh folder. Hell, I can do that with Apple's .Mac, right now, and synchronize content across devices like iPod and iPhone. Apple's synchronization model is no less proprietary than Microsoft's, but it's here today.". Right, Live Mesh isn't our yet! It is still in beta! Give it a break for christ sake!

"Right now, Live Mesh offers no mobile device sync, not even for Windows Mobile smart phones." No but it's going to. And Macs are to be supported as well. And I'm 100% sure that the open-source community will be able to build an application that works on linux. The need is there.

I agree with you that "Developers and other partners will buy into another Microsoft universe if they support Live Mesh." But this is an interesting piece of technology that might just make life easier for the end user. It is also unquestionable that this move from Microsoft will make Google and others come up with alternatives. My overall point is that this will benefit the end user in the long run one way or another. How can that possibly be bad?

I think we should all give Ray Ozzie a big hand for bringing decade-old ideas from his former home at Lotus to Microsoft. Gotta love that Microsoft enervation - whoops - "innovation"

Dear Joe,

Yeah, it's a Microsoft "product" so what is this rant about? Did you want it to be a Google product? Perhaps an Apple product?

Frankly, if you want something that is truly open and free, then build it yourself, and give it away. Asking corporations to be as noble is, well, idiotic...not to say that they don't ever give things away, and I'm sure philantrophy is alive and well in business.

I have no doubt in your expertise and intelligence, so it seems to me that, based on your rant, you have a clear idea of the proper design of, and are ready to build one such great product for all the world to adopt as their "core" hub. It also seems that you have perfected the development process (resources are assumed of couse) that allows your product to run on all platforms at each stage of the development process. All this for free, unrestricted use/reuse. That sounds awesome!

So when might we expect a beta?

I guess you realy don't understand the MS syncronization.
I have been staying ontop of it from the beginning and even considering my Java libs that will communicate with the MS synch.
I am just shocked that this is such and ANTI-MS article out of ignorance.

People purchase Microsoft products precisely because they are "Microsoft Centric", which the last time I looked makes them the number one software maker for personal use, hands down. And yes, they are developing API's that will be supported by Microsoft (much to Microsoft's benefit). But do you want to force a private business to be altruistic? They aren't open-source, and while they support and publish many open-source standards (albeit with their flavor and input) their primary task is to survive, and grow in the marketplace. Probably many here are too young to remember DEC, Data General, Datapoint, or gasp, Compaq, and the like, and these are hardware companies. Remember Ashton-Tate? Microsoft must continue to remake themselves or find that they irrelevant at sometime in the future, where the name Microsoft can and will end up on the trash heap just like many of their predecessors. While there are many things I don't like about Microsoft and even some products (Vista is one of them) I give them kudos for gleaning the future, and for daring this change.

Dittos to Don Judd's comments!

Don Judd's comments put a great deal of shame on Joe's rambling bias nonsense article.

I'm quite certain Mr Vaughn-Nichols a rampant Microbasher has taken over Joe's pen name and now writes on behalf of him.

Joe - please give up the microsoft-watch site to someone who can be objective - PLEASE

So much said by everyone. The article fails to clarify what is Live Mesh and What is Web 2.0. Who comes first with Sych solution is going to be the winner in the race. In my opinion, it is not the race against the time but against the value.

The best way to figure out what is mesh is to have someone with a mesh subscription share a file (or folder) with you and have them send an invite. This way you can join the beta program. Right now the "platform" that mesh is, has 2 sample applications: 1) Sharing and storing files and folders on the cloud (like skydrive) and sync it across various devices (right now windows) and across various users. 2) It also has a remote desktop version for the web (read mesh) which you can use across all the devices you have added to mesh.

Great product once you simply start using it!

Thanks Joe for sharing your thoughts.Everyone can make their opinion as to what they wnat to use.