<Windows is a moving target. JVM is compact and well-specified, and Sun is not trying to kill off software emulation of JVM.>
Let's put on our strategy caps.
Dan, Sun is a hardware company, right. They make proprietary UNIX OSs to run on thier proprietary machines. They see NT as a strong performer in the market (meaning strong demand) and they see UNIX as a whole as fragmented with many different factions. So they simply take thier Hardware/software combo to the next level (notice I didn't say software or software/hardware combo). They release a beautiful, cross platform, open language. The problem is it can do nothing (but does it with ubiquity) on 17 different platforms. Everybody loves it, but nobody can use it. Then Sun, the hardware company known for making software to run its proprietary hardware, comes along with Pico chips and Javabeans that allow you to actually use Java and use it fast. Now if we take a closer look at this situation, you tell me from this point on, Java will run best on S_n machines, right? Who's machines? It is just the hardware company up to its old tricks again, they simply picked up a few marketing tips from Wintel. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Actually it is nothing but right, but it is still a competitive strategy, and that is what Sal is trying so fervently to make clear. This strategy differs none in intent from MSFT's strategy - dominantion. Sun wants to break out of the upcoming UNIX rut caused by fractionalization and the upcoming NT wars, and dominate network computing. Good for earnings and the stock long term, allows the company to buy more hochey pucks for the company team.
As for the proprietary lock bit that I was discussing. The context was technology companies, not aviation and automotive. You tell me what software company became a leader in its field without proprietary techonlogy. Go ahead, I dare you.
When you, as an entrepenuer have a technology idea that you bring to a venture capitalist, the firs thing that they ask you is - "Is it patentable?" "If not can it be easily duplicated?" "If so are there significant barriers to entry to the market so as to prevent competitors from encroaching on your market long enough for you to build up a substantial competitive lead and margin? (think of INTC - who tried to lay claim to the x86 moniker and failed, but gained a signifcant lead, distribution channels, benefitted from a natural barrier to entry (COSTS)).
now why do you think they ask these questions of the young, eccentric, nerdy, capitalistic entrepenuers? BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE GAME TO MAKE MONEY (a minimum projected 4 times thier investment in 3 years is the standard) AND YOU CANNOT NOT MAKE MONEY WITH EVERY IMTITATING YOUR PRODUCT! Hope I didn't say that too loud, but I had to drive the point home. Competition always stands in the way of the bank, and in a capitalistic environ, you must crush the competition. This is imposible with open systems withouth signicant barriers to entry. Even then you still have proprietary actions. Look at IBM (the then PC leader) and the mca or mci bus(?) for PC's, damn I forgot the name but I'm sure you know what I am talking about. Even Compaq computer (the current leader) had to throw thier little proprietary bit in (memory modules and architecture). |
