Re: Do consumers even want web services?

[Robert Lantry]

"Michael D. Kersey" <mdkersey@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:3C8835F6.1CBC4A1B@hal-pc.org...
> Barry Parr asks interesting questions about web services in his NEW
> ARCHITECT MAGAZINE (formerly Web Techniques) article "Will Web services
> do anything for consumer software?" Some clips:
>
> > "Who really needs it?
> > The push for consumer Web services is coming simply because
> > we now have the technology to distribute applications, and
> > most importantly because it serves the strategic needs of vendors.
> > Neither case has anything to do with end-user demand.
> > This is the classic formula for technology-driven failure,
> > not market-driven success."
>
> > "What the folks in Redmond would really love to do is rent
> > our customers data back to us once they've gained control of
> > it. That's the dream behind Passport and other .Net services.
> > Once Microsoft or any other organization convinces customers
> > to store all of their infromation at one location, other
> > companies will have to pay Microsoft and upgrade their software
> > to access that data."
>
> After reading MM, this article is indeed "Deja vu all over again!"

I do sincerely hope that "analysts" and the like aren't expecting
web-services to be something analogous to web-pages. I had clients (and
even worked for a company) that assumed exactly that. And that UDDI was
going to basically be a replacement for DNS.

They solve a programming (plumbing) problem and that's it. Consumers won't
(or shouldn't) be aware of web-services. They're a programmer's tool.

I've read several amusing articles on slashdot (where do they find these
people?) that .NET is all about subscription services and charging people
for data and every conceivable horror story that could possibly exist. I
think there is semantic confusion between Web-Services and
Passport/Hailstorm.

I've yet to see the class in .NET that says MS.Servers.StoreConsumerData. I
think there was a marketing collision somewhere.

--
- Robert

Being pestered by poltergeists? Possessed by demons? Having trouble
understanding .NET?
Then immediately Visit HillHouse Psychic Investigators!

http://www.psychicdetectives.com/main.htm

[Jay Glynn]

Robert.
Well said ;-).
I don't know how many times I've had to explain this. Most that I had to
explain it to should have known better...


>
> I do sincerely hope that "analysts" and the like aren't expecting
> web-services to be something analogous to web-pages. I had clients (and
> even worked for a company) that assumed exactly that. And that UDDI was
> going to basically be a replacement for DNS.
>
> They solve a programming (plumbing) problem and that's it. Consumers
won't
> (or shouldn't) be aware of web-services. They're a programmer's tool.
>
> I've read several amusing articles on slashdot (where do they find these
> people?) that .NET is all about subscription services and charging people
> for data and every conceivable horror story that could possibly exist. I
> think there is semantic confusion between Web-Services and
> Passport/Hailstorm.
>
> I've yet to see the class in .NET that says MS.Servers.StoreConsumerData.
I
> think there was a marketing collision somewhere.
>
> --
> - Robert
>
> Being pestered by poltergeists? Possessed by demons? Having trouble
> understanding .NET?
> Then immediately Visit HillHouse Psychic Investigators!
>
> http://www.psychicdetectives.com/main.htm
>
>

[Mike Mitchell]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 21:54:30 -0600, "Michael D. Kersey"
<mdkersey@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>After reading MM, this article is indeed "Deja vu all over again!"

Yeah, I always give good déjà vu!

MM

[Richard Dalton. .]

>> This is the classic formula for technology-driven failure,
>> not market-driven success."

Every demo I've seen of a Web Service can be done with CGI.
Sure it's interesting to have code behind an interface that's
defined in XML etc. etc. But am I right in saying that it amounts
to running code on a server which we may or may not own.

A technology is only intersting if it allows us to achieve business
goals which are technically impossible or unfeasible right now.
All I see in Web Services is a different way of doing something which
is possible.

Now it may be different for developers. Perhaps they can pull together
wildly distributed applications written by different people in different
languages etc. But it it solving a Business need? Are business frustrated
by their inaibility to run code on someone else's server.

I don't know.

-Richard


"Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention
from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end."
-Walden

"We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas,
but Maine and Texas it may be have nothing important to communicate. "
-Thoreau

[Jonathan Allen]

> All I see in Web Services is a different way of doing something which
> is possible.

It is a standardized way of doing it, which is preferable to the haphazard
way we were doing it in the past.

You mentioned using CGI. My company relies on ASP. Another may use a
non-HTML protocol via UDP. Still others use DCOM remoting.

> But it it solving a Business need? Are business frustrated
> by their inaibility to run code on someone else's server.

There is a real and definite business need.

Last week I saw someone trying to buy a Cell Phone. Halfway through the
process, the salesman went to the Sprint web page and entered the customer's
SSN. A few minutes later, he checked back to find the results of the credit
check. Not just the raw numbers, but an actual Yes or No from Sprint.

How did Sprint's computers get this info from the Credit Verification
Service' computer? They used Web Services, or one of the older technologies
that it replaces.


Are Web Services needed? No.
Is something like them needed? Yes.
Are they the best alternative? Wait and see...

--
Jonathan Allen


<Richard Dalton. .> wrote in message news:3c88ba8d$1@10.1.10.29...
>
>
> >> This is the classic formula for technology-driven failure,
> >> not market-driven success."
>
> Every demo I've seen of a Web Service can be done with CGI.
> Sure it's interesting to have code behind an interface that's
> defined in XML etc. etc. But am I right in saying that it amounts
> to running code on a server which we may or may not own.
>
> A technology is only intersting if it allows us to achieve business
> goals which are technically impossible or unfeasible right now.
> All I see in Web Services is a different way of doing something which
> is possible.
>
> Now it may be different for developers. Perhaps they can pull together
> wildly distributed applications written by different people in different
> languages etc. But it it solving a Business need? Are business
frustrated
> by their inaibility to run code on someone else's server.
>
> I don't know.
>
> -Richard
>
>
> "Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention
> from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end."
> -Walden
>
> "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to
Texas,
> but Maine and Texas it may be have nothing important to communicate. "
> -Thoreau
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Rob Teixeira]

"Richard Dalton." . wrote:
>
>Now it may be different for developers. Perhaps they can pull together
>wildly distributed applications written by different people in different
>languages etc. But it it solving a Business need?

Yes. The company i'm doing work for at the moment has their entire billing/invoicing
system in CICS, but their EC stuff is all on distributed systems ranging
from Linux to Windows servers. Making them "talk" to eachother has cost a
small fortune in proprietary software in the past. Their move to XML has
produced cheaper solutions and quicker development life-cycles, which translates
into quicker time to market.

>Are business frustrated
>by their inaibility to run code on someone else's server.

Perhaps. MS' example was the rental car reserve system between two companies.
Of course, that question totally ignores a heterogenious environment with
a companies *own* server(s).

-Rob


>"We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas,
>but Maine and Texas it may be have nothing important to communicate. "
> -Thoreau

LOL!
That says it all
Wonder what he'd say today?

[Mike Mitchell]

On 8 Mar 2002 05:20:13 -0800, "Richard Dalton." . wrote:

>All I see in Web Services is a different way of doing something which
>is possible.

And. moreover, has been possible for years using existing tools. But
they had to reinvent the wheel in order to push it on to unsuspecting
punters, who will think that web services are some amazing new
breakthrough. Pisses me off how they get away with it.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:04:10 -0800, "Jonathan Allen"
<greywolfghost@cox.net> wrote:

>......They used Web Services, or one of the older technologies
>that it replaces.

"...or one of the older technologies..." says it all! You've been able
to do this kind of thing for years!

>Are Web Services needed? No.

Exactly. Just another license to print money.

MM

[Ray Collins]

> They solve a programming (plumbing) problem and that's it. Consumers
won't
> (or shouldn't) be aware of web-services. They're a programmer's tool.
>
> I've read several amusing articles on slashdot (where do they find these
> people?) that .NET is all about subscription services and charging people
> for data and every conceivable horror story that could possibly exist. I
> think there is semantic confusion between Web-Services and
> Passport/Hailstorm.
>
> I've yet to see the class in .NET that says MS.Servers.StoreConsumerData.
I
> think there was a marketing collision somewhere.


Look what this lunatic had to say :-)

"the imminent launch of Visual Studio .NET was an "absolute cornerstone" to
the development of Web Services surrounding its new subscription and
services model"

and this

"While the asp model touted as the Next Big Thing three years ago had failed
.... through the addition of .NET Web-based services, and a growing
acceptance of subscription software models, software as a service would
ultimately become a mainstream market"

Who said this ?
Microsoft Australia managing director Paul Houghton
Quotes from "Microsoft Quickens subscription drive" as reported in March
Windows & .Net Magazine (Aust)
www.itnews.com..au

The customers should be aware of the technology behind the scenes while they
can still do something about it.
Where to you want to rent today ?

[Ed Courtenay]

<Richard Dalton. .> wrote in message news:3c88ba8d$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Now it may be different for developers. Perhaps they can pull together
> wildly distributed applications written by different people in different
> languages etc. But it it solving a Business need? Are business
frustrated
> by their inaibility to run code on someone else's server.
>

Yes, it definately helps to solve a business need. A recent project
undertaken by my company involved communicating with several disparate
systems, none of which were under our direct control. Web services provided
a quick and easy way of exposing methods on these systems in a type safe
manner, and reduced the overall development time by several orders of
magnitude.

[Jonathan Allen]

> While in the long run we can expect more standardization, IMO the scale
> is in decades, not in years.

While I hope otherwise, I fear that you may be correct.

--
Jonathan Allen


"Michael D. Kersey" <mdkersey@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:3C89AABE.BA2E74C1@hal-pc.org...
> Jonathan Allen wrote:
> > > All I see in Web Services is a different way of doing something which
> > > is possible.
> > It is a standardized way of doing it, which is preferable to the
haphazard
> > way we were doing it in the past.
>
> We would all wish so, but IMO this will founder as have previous efforts
> at standardization.
>
> For years we've had a variety of standard file and communications
> formats of varying complexity. But standardization adoption levels have
> been low. Different companies have different definitions of almost every
> data field in their database. The chance that most companies in an
> industry would agree on terminology and semantics alone is minimal. I
> have seen 20-year attempts at data standardization not succeed (they
> trudge on nonetheless - I guess the process ends when the right
> person(s) die!-).
>
> This has nothing to do with Web Services, .NET, XML, or any such
> technical standard; it is just a matter of semantics and human
> (non)cooperative behavior. These problems, and the desire by each party
> involved to gain some competitive advantage from the standards process,
> has kept standardization from occurring in many cases.
>
> It seems that standardization is usually imposed by necessity (i.e., big
> companies force suppliers or customers to accept their standards). A
> good example is Walmart's treatment of suppliers.
>
> While in the long run we can expect more standardization, IMO the scale
> is in decades, not in years.

[Jonathan Allen]

> Web services provided
> a quick and easy way of exposing methods on these systems

'Quick' and 'easy' are the key terms here. There is very little I can do in
ASP.Net that I couldn't do in ASP. However, it is much easier with ASP.Net.

--
Jonathan Allen


"Ed Courtenay" <my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c89d6ce$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> <Richard Dalton. .> wrote in message news:3c88ba8d$1@10.1.10.29...
> >
> > Now it may be different for developers. Perhaps they can pull together
> > wildly distributed applications written by different people in different
> > languages etc. But it it solving a Business need? Are business
> frustrated
> > by their inaibility to run code on someone else's server.
> >
>
> Yes, it definately helps to solve a business need. A recent project
> undertaken by my company involved communicating with several disparate
> systems, none of which were under our direct control. Web services
provided
> a quick and easy way of exposing methods on these systems in a type safe
> manner, and reduced the overall development time by several orders of
> magnitude.
>
>

[Jay Glynn]

It does very littel that can't be done now. The point is it does it much
easier and with much less effort on the part pf the developer. Therefore the
chances of it being used and implemented is much greater. Remote invocation
has been around for awhile. RMI, DCOM etc etc. But those are for the most
part binary so firewalls hate them and difficult to implement and maintain.
Web services fixes those two problems.

What .NET brings to the table is developer productivity. It has been
reported by some that they see a productivity gain by a factor of 2 or 3.
That is inline with me experience.

In your thinking we would all still be coding assembler. .NET and web
services provides a solution that is quick and easy to implement. I'm sorry
if you can't see the benefit in that.

> For your punishment, answer the following question in 2 sentences that
> any CEO could understand:
> "What can web services and .NET do that can't be done with current
> technology?"

[Jay Glynn]

And performs much much better.

>
> 'Quick' and 'easy' are the key terms here. There is very little I can do
in
> ASP.Net that I couldn't do in ASP. However, it is much easier with
ASP.Net.

[Kunle Odutola]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c89405b.25701887@news.devx.com...


> >......They used Web Services, or one of the older technologies
> >that it replaces.
>
> "...or one of the older technologies..." says it all! You've been able
> to do this kind of thing for years!

What did VB1-6 do that couldn't be done before. Or indeed QB, PDS and any or
all dialects of BASIC?

Kunle