On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Michael Kimsal wrote:
>
>  Really?  I think it shows that Sun hasn't historically been all that
>> concerned about the Mac.
>>
>
> Agreed - that too. They've wanted mass consumer markets handed to them,
> instead of doing mass marketing.  AOL managed to get software on everyone's
> PCs from 1995-2003, through mailers, magazine inserts, bundling dealings,
> etc.  Sun sued MS for *not* including the type of Java they wanted
> distributed.
>
> More accurately they sued Microsoft for including something they called
> Java but with 2 key portability technologies (JNI and RMI) ripped out.
> Microsoft was actively saying that JNI and RMI were no good and that one
> should simply use Windows-specific technologies instead.  This was an
> obvious and strong Windows-lock-in strategy.
>
> The lawsuit was damaging, but I don't think Sun had any choice.
>


There were 2 different suits AFAIR - one against MS initially for "changing"
Java.  The second when MS decided to drop distributing Java altogether.
That's the one I was talking about.


>
>
>
> Again, if Java is key to their future, being more in control of how and
> when versions shipped would seem to be paramount.  Leaving these decisions
> to competitors (Sun and Apple and IBM all sell hardware, though admittedly
> to somewhat different markets at the moment) just seems like *really bad
> business*.  This is not me talking as a techie saying "ooh - I want the
> latest java".  It's me thinking "why would you leave your competitors in
> charge of how and when people get access to your differentiating factor?".
>
> If you have infinite resources you'd push your stuff everywhere.
>
> Given Sun's quite clearly limited resources, tiny high cost markets like
> OSX and AIX just have to be left to their own vendors.
>

I guess I'm not sure how things like Firefox and libsdl, with clearly fewer
resources than Sun, manage to get their stuff ported to OSX.


>
> Apple clearly does not care all that much about any portability
> technologies -- they care about their own branding, eye candy, and unique
> value proposition.  Portability is critical to real use, but it is "me too"
> stuff in Apple's book.
>
>
Agreed, just like MS doesn't either, regardless of whatever rhetoric they
put out.


-- 
Michael Kimsal
http://michaelkimsal.com
919.827.4724 - Skype
919.455.8488 - Cell

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to