Will Android be a spectacular revenue-generator for Google, or a spectacular failure If you believe Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the company will eventually get $10 billion per year from the operating system. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, on the other hand, has long contended that Android is an operating system without a business model. Whorsquo right At a recent analyst meeting, Ballmer went out of his way to criticize Android tablets, saying that Windows-based tablets will easily outsell what he calls weird Android machines. According to the Business Insider, he said: If with the applic <a href=https://www.stanleycup.at>stanley isolierkanne</a> ation base, with the tools that we have, with the user understanding and momentum and everything going on, we canrsquo;t compete withhellip;whatever the weird collection of Android machines is going to look like, shame on us. Ballmer has a long history of dissing Android. Back in November of 2008, he said that Android was a money-loser for Google, and an operating system in search of a business model. According to CNet, he said about Googlersquo plans for Android: I donrsquo <a href=https://www.hydro-jugs.us>HydroJug</a> ;t really understand their strategy. Maybe somebody else does. If I went to my shareholder meeting, my analyst meeting, and said, lsquo;hey, wersquo;ve just launched a new product that has no revenue model!rsq <a href=https://www.stanleycup.com.es>stanley cup</a> uo;hellip;Irsquo;m not sure that my investors would take that very well. But thatrsquo kind of what Googlersquo telling their investors about Android. Fgbp Microsoft recovers data for T-Mobile Sidekick / Danger Hiptop users
It is tempting to say that the current vendor interest in Web services, or e-services, is another attempt to sell more complex software to simplify the complexity of building enterprise IT systems. After all, pas <a href=https://www.owalas.com.de>owala deutschland</a> t attempts to devise an all-encompassing software infrastructure involved interoperable application components and the ability to offer func <a href=https://www.polenes.us>polene usa</a> tionality over the network. We might have called them distributed network objects in distant days. Now the nondescript name Web services seems to be sticking.Adopting a ldquo oftware as a service strategy might not be the balm to sooth all of ITrsquo ills, but the idea of using the network to deploy component-based applications will not go away. Leading IT vendors and hundreds of smaller companies envision a new directio <a href=https://www.owalas.com.de>owala wasserflasche</a> n in software. Of course, the element that breaks with past architectures is the Internet. Along with the relatively cheap connectivity afforded by the Net, Web services promise a faster time to market for new projects and a model for integrating existing applications. But that crucial piece, namely the benefit to business, is missing from the discussion. As Tom Sullivanrsquo Special News Report on Web services points out, so few examples of real-life Web services exist that marketing efforts risk missing their mark. Another significant change to this latest software wave is a convergence around industrywide standards, notably XML-based SOAP Simple Object Access Protocol