Microsoft Competes for the Web 2.0 Backbone
March 7th, 2008 (2:00pm) Mike Gunderloy 4 Comments
A lot of the web 2.0 infrastructure runs on servers provided by Amazon Web Services - and no wonder, because the combination of no up-front costs and pay-as-you-go pricing is very attractive when you’re a struggling company with no capital. Now it looks like Microsoft has decided they need to take some of this business away from Amazon. They’ve recently announced the launch of Microsoft SQL Server Data Services which, despite the name, is not a version of SQL Server but another way (now in open beta) to store data “in the cloud.”
SQL Server Data Services promises a business-class SLA, REST and ROAP interfaces with a supporting C# client library, and geo-redundant replicated copies of your data. So far, pricing does not seem to have been announced. Still, with the lack of an equivalent on-demand CPU service in the same data center, and the predilection of the current crop of startups for non-Microsoft software, it seems unlikely to pose an immediate threat to Amazon’s business. But Microsoft has a great talent for sticking with a business and improving, so this is one to watch for the future.
4 Comments Post your own comment
Jay says: March 7th, 2008 3:58pm
Gotta love their habit over the years of naming un-or marginally related things in a confusingly similar way.
paisano says: March 8th, 2008 1:57pm
Good point Jay. Microsoft has always had problems with naming their products/services. I still don’t like using the year in the name because you wind up looking very slack and make your customers feel as if they’re using old out-dated technology such as Windows 2003 Server or Office 2000 (both still corporate standards in many organizations).
Remember the notorious Outlook Express?
It had no relation to their flagship email client Outlook! Brilliant move.
As for their current strategy involving web 2.0 and beyond, they obviously still have problems with naming conventions.
For example, besides this misnomer for SQL Data Services, they’ve also gone astray with their web based Office services. For example, Microsoft Office Live Workspace isn’t really a web version of Microsoft Office like Google Docs or Zoho Write and Sheet. It is more like Box.net than anything else. Just an online storage service. OK, then what is OfficeLive.com? Is THAT an online version of Office apps? NOPE. Not even close. It just offers their workspace storage service as well as something called Office Live Small Business which is basically a glorified Geocities service offering a domain name and website building tools. Yawn.
Anyway, I am happy that the lumbering giant has finally decided to stick its head into the cloud, literally. Yeah, they still need to learn a lot about marketing and branding their products and services (can’t they just steal that too from Apple?), but they are a necessary evil. We NEED Microsoft almost as much as they need us.
pai
Jon Beattie says: March 8th, 2008 8:43pm
If I had to sell an enterprise client on storing their data offsite with Microsoft or Amazon, it would probably be an easier decision for them to go with the Microsoft option. The other contender that is often overlooked I’ve noticed is Salesforce. They are pushing the whole Force.com proposition whereby you can basically build anything on their platform. As well as providing a cloud computing database, there is a whole lot more they offer http://s.wordpress.com/wp-content/themes/vip/webworkerdaily2/images/content/btn_submitcomment.pngin terms of an existing third party developer community and their products.
I’m signing up for the beta, it will be interesting to see how it looks.
Oh yeah and Jay, you are dead right. Why can’t they get names right? Now they are changing everything to Live! - originally they made everything .NET when they launched that, confusing the hell out of everyone. MSN Messenger suddenly became Microsoft Messenger .NET in 2002, I think, now it is Live! Messenger. How hard could it be? They’ve got like a gazzillion people in their marketing department.
Paul says: March 10th, 2008 11:37am
“I still don’t like using the year in the name because you wind up looking very slack and make your customers feel as if they’re using old out-dated technology”
Perhaps that’s why they *do* have the year in the name, to make everyone acutely aware that you don’t have their latest and “greatest” software. Like the auto manufacturers in the 1950’s, giving their products a minor (but noticeable) facelift every year so that people would know you had last year’s model in your driveway.
The world would be a happier place if they put as much effort into fixing security issues as they do into dreaming up new names for the same old stuff.