 |
Sun: Threatened by Standards?
Posted by pbrittan on October 17, 2003 at 06:39 AM | Comments (10)
Can 'standards' and 'standardization' be two unrelated concepts?
There was an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Cloud Over Sun Microsystems: Plummeting Computer Prices, which dissects Sun’s current financial and strategic challenges.
One of the interesting claims in the article is that "Scott McNealy, Sun's chief executive for the past 19 years, long resisted the standardization trend sweeping across the tech industry." The articles asserts that "The wager paid off, making Sun the dominant provider of the server computers that power Internet sites and corporate computing. But now the company is paying a big price for bucking the tech mainstream -- and scrambling to keep customers and stay afloat."
It's ironic to see Sun portrayed as a company that has consciously flown in the face of standardization, when in practice Sun champions open standards precisely as a way to differentiate itself from Microsoft.
So, which company does this article say represents mainstream standardization? Microsoft. "Sun appears to be the latest casualty of the rising tide of tech standardization, led by Intel and Microsoft. Many companies in the history of high-tech -- Digital Equipment Corp. and Apple Computer Inc., among others -- believed they could resist standard designs and thus ultimately charge a premium for their products. In the end, a lot of these companies were either acquired or hang on in the industry as smaller players."
Bookmark blog post:  del.icio.us  Digg  DZone  Furl  Reddit
Comments
Comments are listed in date ascending order (oldest first) | Post Comment
-
Sun is proprietary
Sun's entire business is based on proprietary technology.
SPARC is proprietary.
Solaris is proprietary.
Java is proprietary.
Netscape/iPlanet/SunONE Web Server is proprietary.
etc.
Sun spends more time battling AGAINST standards than working with them.
Why build yet another proprietary web server instead of just using Apache?
Why try promoting Java (JVM) everywhere when the Sun lawyers try to milk any company that volunteers to port Java to their platform.
Posted by: dukefetish on October 17, 2003 at 08:19 AM
-
Sun is proprietary
That last line is misleading and pretty false, and I think you know it, mister.
Posted by: keithkml on October 17, 2003 at 09:35 AM
-
Hmm?
You said:
> in practice Sun champions open standards
Could you give us some examples?
A speach some 2 weeks back literally made fun of IBM since they used Linux instead of having their OWN operating system.
That kind of statement subscribes to the tech Sun sells and supports. Or to say the same thing in another way; buying a Sun machine requires you to get a Solaris enginieer since your Linux Guru will be hopelessly lost on the machine.
I basically fail to see why you say Sun provides much less follows standards.
Posted by: zander on October 17, 2003 at 09:47 AM
-
Sun is proprietary
Just curious; did Apple pay Sun for the 'priviledge' to have a JVM for MacOS?
Posted by: zander on October 17, 2003 at 09:50 AM
-
Sun is proprietary
That last line is misleading and pretty false, and I think you know it, mister.
So, you concede all the previous points?
Posted by: jamesbritt on October 18, 2003 at 08:09 PM
-
Hmm?
Ive talked to several collegues in the field and while I feel that last article you quote shows they know what is needed for companies to like them; they fail to follow the practice outlined there.
Open Standards is about buying a product that a multitude of vendors can support and talk to. The goal is that if you buy a Solaris machine you can run talk to many many application dealers and get software for that.
In practice solaris might be Unix, but it runs on a propriatairy processor which means you can't switch since that other company should not only support that open standard (Unix), but also Sparc.
This goes for just about any technology Sun sells; and in the end you get lock in just like in any other large vendor.
The fact that Sun champions open standards can't be viewed like anything but a simple marketing ploy making it look better then the competition.
Don't get me wrong; I don't really have a problem with Sun selling closed source tech. Just don't buy into their pitch until you looked at all the facts.
Posted by: zander on October 19, 2003 at 12:18 PM
-
Does a monopoly == a standard?
I find it strange that the author cites WIntel as his "standard" platform that Sun is "resisting."
Apparently to the author, a monopoly is a standard because it allows noone to sell anything else. Who besides Microsoft can you buy Windows from? Who besides Microsoft has access to windoiws source?? Windows is the GREAT example of a totally propriatary product.
Similarly the author cites "Intel" as a standard and NOT x86. One *might* argue that x86 is *barely* a standard in that Intel owns JUST under enough of the market not be a legal monopoly and allows ONE competitor making x86 chips (AMD) *just* enough breathing room to live.
Legally Intel isn't a monpoly, just, but in all practicality they are and certainly are as propietary as Sparc chips are to Sun.
What the author is REALLY saying, under his Politcally Correct "standards" nonsense verbage is that Sun DARES to challenge the prevailing industry monopolies rather then buckling under.
I say Bravo SUN!
Posted by: jeffpk on October 31, 2003 at 10:18 PM
|
java.net RSS Feeds
