Web Services

[Zane Thomas]

Phil,

>Zane: Yes, thank you! :-) I will probably pay you for your NewsServer
>component very soon, though. Any plans to release a .NET version of that?

Not at this time.


--
It's never too late to have
a happy childhood.

[Mike Mitchell]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:43:24 -0800, "Phil Weber" <pweber @
fawcette.com> wrote:

> > And you didn't even tell him about the $10,000 developer fee!
>
>Mike: You're spewing misinformation again. I have written a Web service for
>managing these newsgroups (moving, deleting posts, etc.) I use it, the DevX
>editorial staff use it, and no one has had to pay Microsoft $1 for the
>privilege.

Quote:
"For standard use, which Microsoft expects will involve the majority
of users, Microsoft will charge $10,000 per year for using .Net My
Services and $1,500 per application. "

From:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/ne...098691,00.html

MM

[Ian R]

For using Microsoft's services. Not for using .NET.

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3bfcd54f.3506643@news.devx.com...
>
> Quote:
> "For standard use, which Microsoft expects will involve the majority
> of users, Microsoft will charge $10,000 per year for using .Net My
> Services and $1,500 per application. "
>
> From:
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/ne...098691,00.html
>
> MM

[Jim Pragit]

Hi Mike,

The title of the article is misleading. The article is about the cost of
using Microsoft's Hailstorm services, not .NET itself. If you look at comments
after the article you'll see a lot of people were confused by it. I contacted
Wylie Wong, the author of the article and exchanged e-mails with him. I
don't have them in front of me (they're at work, I'm at home) but he agreed
and explained that titles are not written by the author. Instead, titles
are written by an editor. (For all I know, the editor is journalism major
and knows nothing about technology.) Wylie told me he forwarded my e-mails
to the editorial staff at ZDNET but as far as I know, they have not issued
a correction. BTW, this is not the first time ZDNET has published a technically
inaccurate article about .NET.

- Jim

>
>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/ne...098691,00.html
>
>MM

[Phil Weber]

> Microsoft will charge $10,000 per year for using .Net
> My Services and $1,500 per application.

Mike: .NET My Services is *a* Web Service. Not all Web Services are My
Services. There is no charge for creating or deploying Web Services.
---
Phil Weber

[Patrick Troughton]

The very first post on the page states....

---

Misleading title. It's not a charge to "develop" applications, it's a charge
to imbed functionality built by MS (i.e. calendar) into your apps. This is
no different than paying a license fee for a third-party component.

---

/Pat

"Jim Pragit" <NoSpam@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>The title of the article is misleading. The article is about the cost of
>using Microsoft's Hailstorm services, not .NET itself. If you look at comments
>after the article you'll see a lot of people were confused by it. I contacted
>Wylie Wong, the author of the article and exchanged e-mails with him. I
>don't have them in front of me (they're at work, I'm at home) but he agreed
>and explained that titles are not written by the author. Instead, titles
>are written by an editor. (For all I know, the editor is journalism major
>and knows nothing about technology.) Wylie told me he forwarded my e-mails
>to the editorial staff at ZDNET but as far as I know, they have not issued
>a correction. BTW, this is not the first time ZDNET has published a technically
>inaccurate article about .NET.
>
>- Jim
>
>>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/ne...098691,00.html
>>
>>MM
>

[Mike Mitchell]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 06:17:46 -0500, "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote:

>For using Microsoft's services. Not for using .NET.

What's the difference? .NET is about web services. Period.

MM

[Zane Thomas]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:33:42 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
wrote:

>.NET is about web services. Period.

Bwaahahaha, ROFLMAO!!!

You have no idea how absurd that statement is. Period.


--
It's never too late to have
a happy childhood.

[Jay Glynn]

Congrats Mike, you've outdone yourself. All I can do is sit and shake my
head and wonder.

I'm sure in a minute or two I'll be laughing as hard as Zane.

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3bfd6106.14359914@news.devx.com...
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 06:17:46 -0500, "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote:
>
> >For using Microsoft's services. Not for using .NET.
>
> What's the difference? .NET is about web services. Period.
>
> MM

[Mike Mitchell]

X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.134.62.242
X-Trace: 24 Nov 2001 20:52:33 GMT, 217.134.62.242
Lines: 23
Path: 147.208.176.211
Xref: 147.208.176.211 vb.dotnet.discussion:33033

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:52:09 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:33:42 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
>wrote:
>
>>.NET is about web services. Period.
>
>Bwaahahaha, ROFLMAO!!!
>
>You have no idea how absurd that statement is. Period.

I suggest you read Patrick Meader's December EdNote, and then
reconsider such a cheeky riposte! .NET *is* web services web services
web services all the way. Apart from being a Java killer, that's why
.NET was invented. The whole point of .NET is to deliver web services,
to enable them, to earn money from them, to aid in writing them.
Microsoft naturally wants to participate by earning money distributing
web services or acting as honest broker between other parties who want
to distribute, write, or consume them, and thereby MS gets money from
that source, too. Nothing wrong with this -- if you enjoy being part
of a grand hegemony.

MM

[Zane Thomas]

Mike,

>>>.NET is about web services. Period.
>>
>>Bwaahahaha, ROFLMAO!!!
>>
>>You have no idea how absurd that statement is. Period.
>
>I suggest you read Patrick Meader's December EdNote, and then
>reconsider such a cheeky riposte!

I don't see where he said that ".net is about web services. Period"; but
no matter, if he had he'd be wrong.

However he doesn't have the tunnel-vision you're suffering from, which is
why in the December issue you will that he published this GuestOp by yours
truely:

http://www.devx.com/upload/free/feat...2/go0112-1.asp



>.NET *is* web services web services web services all the way.


Sorry Mike, but that is bullshit plain and simple. I venture to guess
that I have much more insight into this issue than you do, since I've been
writing .net code for over a year and only played with web services for a
few days total. You, otoh, apparently haven't even bothered installing
..net or reading the documentation.



--
It's never too late to have
a happy childhood.

[Jay Glynn]

OK, I just read the editororial. So what. He basically states that .NET and
VS.NET can build Web Services. Well there's some news. Nowhere does he state
that ".NET is about web services. Period." because Patrick is smart enough
to know better. Web Services are but one aspect of .NET. Windows Forms, for
example, are one of the best parts of .NET. Blows what can be done with VB6
away and leaves it in the dust. Web Services are getting the press lately,
hence the fact that Patrick would do an editorial on it (he is part of the
press your know. Honest. He had a press pass at PDC.). I think if you go
back an really read the editorial you will see that it's purpose is to
announce a new column about Web Services (one of many subjects regarding
..NET).

I guess all I can do is sit and shake my head some more....


>
> I suggest you read Patrick Meader's December EdNote, and then
> reconsider such a cheeky riposte! .NET *is* web services web services
> web services all the way. Apart from being a Java killer, that's why
> NET was invented. The whole point of .NET is to deliver web services,
> to enable them, to earn money from them, to aid in writing them.
> Microsoft naturally wants to participate by earning money distributing
> web services or acting as honest broker between other parties who want
> to distribute, write, or consume them, and thereby MS gets money from
> that source, too. Nothing wrong with this -- if you enjoy being part
> of a grand hegemony.
>
> MM

[Zane Thomas]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:42:25 -0600, "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I guess all I can do is sit and shake my head some more....

It appears that Mike is so caught up in his zealous campaign that he fails
to recognize how wrong he is.


--
It's never too late to have
a happy childhood.

[Jay Glynn]

And you can't take anyone serious unless they have rolled up their sleeves
and tried this stuff. If after doing that he can honestly say he doesn't see
the benefits, then fine. Until then he is doing nothing but spouting
worthless FUD...

>
> >I guess all I can do is sit and shake my head some more....
>
> It appears that Mike is so caught up in his zealous campaign that he fails
> to recognize how wrong he is.
>

[Mike Mitchell]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:42:25 -0600, "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>OK, I just read the editororial. So what. He basically states that .NET and
>VS.NET can build Web Services. Well there's some news. Nowhere does he state
>that ".NET is about web services. Period." because Patrick is smart enough
>to know better. Web Services are but one aspect of .NET. Windows Forms, for
>example, are one of the best parts of .NET. Blows what can be done with VB6
>away and leaves it in the dust. Web Services are getting the press lately,
>hence the fact that Patrick would do an editorial on it (he is part of the
>press your know. Honest. He had a press pass at PDC.). I think if you go
>back an really read the editorial you will see that it's purpose is to
>announce a new column about Web Services (one of many subjects regarding
>.NET).

Will Windows Forms make money in their own right? Will SOAP make money
in its own right? What about XML? HTML? All these re-hashed
"innovations" will serve one purpose, and that is to produce, deliver,
and consume web services within a .NET world controlled, if possible,
by Microsoft. That's what they're doing it for. To make money. They're
not going to make money by selling VB.NET, C#, or the .NET framework
to a few thousand (okay, so it's Sunday, I'm feeling generous)
programmers. (After all, they'll be giving away the .NET framework
soon enough with the next OS or the one after.) Those kinds of sums
from the developer community are miniscule. No, they will get their
money from the web services that millions upon millions of consumers
will buy. The consumers will buy web services on the fly for one-off
use, or by subscription for longer term, pre-planned use -- like
stopping taking the anti-baby pill in good time if you decide to get
pregnant. This way lies the road to riches, and every new baby will
get a Passport. Eventually, everything you do on a personal computer,
and maybe even in the mainframe world, too, will be a web service of
one kind or another. Ideally, if I don Microsoft's rose-tinted
spectacles for a moment, each and every transaction between any two
computers on the planet will involve a web service of some kind and
that web service will trickle micropayments to Microsoft. That's
probably why Bill thought up the name "Microsoft" -- it was all
eventually going to be about micropayments from millions of consumers.
He's got vision, has Bill. What is it that you think he does on his
think weeks?

>I guess all I can do is sit and shake my head some more....

Isn't that what they call head-banging? Isn't it dangerous?

MM