Need to read the whole article more carefully, and can't get in to WSJ.com right now. But there's probably less here than meets the eye. Recreating Java from scratch is an enormous undertaking, and I don't believe that's what HP intends to do. Probably, they propose to make a Java interpreter (virtual machine, VM) that runs Java bytecodes (intermediate, pseudo-assembly output of Java compiler) more efficiently on HP products.
Better VM's can only increase popularity of Java source code. However, SUN gives away the Java Development Kit (source & byte code generator), and makes money on licensing the VM. So if everyone makes their own VM, it's bad for SUN's business. Not really good for MSFT either, because if Java runs better, MSFT's proprietary strategy on everything is not helped. Further, it's bad for H-P, because no matter what SUN charges for the Java VM, it will cost more for H-P to make it. If it's optimized for H-P stuff, it can't be licensed to anybody else. It would be an uphill battle to overcome SUN's headstart and presumably superior understanding of the technology in any event.
The only beneficiary of all this is the consumer, who will get better products (if H-P actually follows through and makes a product -- the whole thing might well be vaporware -- a negotiating tactic on royalties between H-P and SUN, with MSFT playing along to embarrass Scott McNealy).
IMHO, of course. |
