back to article Microsoft architecture chief: Google Wave 'anti-web'

Microsoft's chief software architect has branded Google's Wave collaboration effort as "anti-web". Ray Ozzie told the Churchill Club in California last week that Wave violates a principle he currently holds dear - that complexity is the enemy of the web. Ozzie said the open web relies on open data formats and protocols, not …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle

    OK, when did Microsoft become such a charitable organization? Better yet, when did they give a "F" about net neutrality? Google has managed to find something that it can do better than Microsoft AND be wildly successful, even if at its core, it is basically evil and nothing more than an older relative to Phorm.

    Regardless of whom you're pulling for, it's a stupid statement made by microsoft

  2. Anonymous Coward

    Microsoft know what they're talking about... they've been anti-web since IE6!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    what's his point ?

    "if you have something that by it's very very complex with may roles and the way you configure it...then you need open source to have many instances of it because no one will be able to do an independent implementation of it,"

    I really don't get it ... what is the problem with Wave as Ozzie sees it ?

    By independent does he mean 'closed source' ? If so, I still don't understand why he says that. As a standard, Wave is certainly not more complex than say the web. Yet there is room for all kinds of vendors of web server and client.

  4. Chronos

    Attack - Counter-Attack

    You know, it's getting really tiring listening to these two behemoths slagging each other off all the damned time. Guys, the vast majority of us who have been around for a while are going to make up our own damned minds whether vendor lock-in or being dependent on several points of failure for access to our data is a good idea and we really don't need leading (and are experienced enough not to be led) around by the nose by your shallow rhetoric so just STFU, code and let the market be the ultimate judge, would you?

    There's good fellows. I know people with chief in their title have nothing better to do in today's hierarchy of incompetence but this really is getting old now. All you're really doing is bleeding credibility every time you open your mouths as you really don't understand each other at all - and it shows.

    Microsoft has always felt the need to dominate, by fair means or foul, any market sector it ventures into, locking people into their technologies wherever possible. Google has, from the start, needed to control information everywhere, using access to it and their own creations to barter for more. Neither of you understand the other's motivations. Both of you are morally bankrupt, having business models based ultimately on gaining absolute control of other people's property so that, once snared, people have no choice but to deal with you. You are both so similar that understanding of the other eludes you as you are both playing the same game with different score cards.

  5. Gilbert George

    MS rattled?

    Wow MS must be really worried about Wave to start the FUD this early.

  6. John


    "Microsoft's chief software architect has branded Google's Wave collaboration effort as "anti-web"."

    Does that translate to mean something close to "B*ll*cks, why didn't we think of that first"?

  7. GreyCells

    Oh, the irony...

    Hmmm - where are the non-open source third party implementations of Microsoft's opaque, overly complex and undocumented applications/apis?

    Smacks of: "Damn... I wish I'd thought of Wave."


  8. Ralph B

    He invented Lotus Notes

    "He invented Lotus Notes"

    See his hair turn white, his face wrinkle and grow old. This is the power of a million Lotus Notes users sending him a million curses every day.

  9. Kevin Bailey

    Wave and Mesh are fundamentally different

    Wave and Mesh are fundamentally different.

    Wave from what I read is a highly interactive browser based application - all data is stored in the cloud.

    Mesh stores data locally on PC's and other devices - and no Linux devices.

    Wave is open source and allows other companies/developers to take part.

    Mesh is closed source and only works with MS software such as MS SQL Server and VS.

    Wave is produced by a company that sees technology as empowering for all, is run by visionaries and has consistently produced very high quality software.

    Mesh is produced by Microsoft who are trying to monopolise their position, is run by greedy accountants and has consistently produced poor quality software.

  10. Peter Mc Aulay

    Wait a minute...

    This man is to blame for both Lotus Notes and Sharepoint and he claims Wave is *too complex*?!

    I don't know nor care what Wave is, but really, you can't make this shit up.

  11. Peyton

    Someone please call in Nurse Ratched

    Microsoft appears to have progressed from 'slightly nutters' to dangerously schizophrenic.

  12. Steve Kay


    The company which wanted to "de-commoditize the protocols" of the Internet (i.e. replace with versions they could license for a price) says something is "anti-web"?

    Feck off...

  13. This post has been deleted by its author

  14. mirza

    Poor guy

    He obviously REALLY wanted to say something BAD about "wave". Its just that he couldn't come with anything meaningful, so he just threw bunch of words without any sense.

  15. Doug

    open source hard to implement fud

    "if you have something that by its very very complex with many roles and the way you configure it...then you need open source to have many instances of it because no one will be able to do an independent implementation of it"

    They speak a different language out there in Redmond, microspeak, where 'open source' and publically documented standards mean the exact opposite.

  16. Charles Manning

    re: Whats his point?

    He says

    "If you have something that by it's very very complex with may roles and the way you configure it...then you need open source to have many instances of it because no one will be able to do an independent implementation of it,"

    which is a completely incomprehensible statement.

    The audience (??PHBs??) will sagely nod their heads not knowing what he's on about, but to scared to admit it.

    You have to at least understand something to evaluate it or disagree with it. This way nobody can disagree with what he said.

    Therefore he gets his message across: Wave is BAD! and when PHBs take the message back to their IT departments they'll be able to say, truthfully, "You would not understand".

  17. Trix
    Paris Hilton


    The guy who invented the pox that is LOTUS NOTES bitching about interactivity with anything else? What a laugh.

    As for Wave, as an email admin, I say 'about time". I've long thought that sending discrete little email packets across the interwebs is reaching its limit, and services where you connect directly to message in real time are the way it's going to go. Reading messages can be as asynchronous as you like. This will solve a lot of the problems with the open nature of SMTP.

  18. Homard

    Poor shitware salesperson who earns a pittance ...

    The whole m$ product range is crapware, apart from outlook which - security issues aside - was (last time I used it years ago) quite a good business mail and organiser client. I actually miss that one application. Every time I have to use any of the other m$ defaecations I get sick of 'where I can't go today because it just doesn't work properly'. What m$ produce by the boatload is amateur retardware designed for the bunch of idiots who will actually pay money for it and consider it acceptable.

    As to the cloud and wave : do you really think I'm stupid enough (after experience with m$ and others) to let you control my e-mail, apps & data ? The only waving I'll be doing is goodbye ! What about my personal information when we know it'll be offshored before you know it (if not already). How do I bring UK data protection to bear here ?

    Time to wake up !

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They are friggin scared

    Besides, Google is going to open-source it, Lars mentioned it several times during their developer preview session.

  20. Krasna Halopti

    Wave is like Groove, only perhaps not proprietary

    Methinks someone is being more than a little disingenuous. After Ozzie left Lotus, he set up Groove Networks - with a product very similar to Wave, but proprietary and always intended to remain so. It relied on a customised client, used XML over the wire and worked by sending changes (even called the same thing - fairly obviously - deltas) to all connected clients in a session, so you could do collaborative white-boarding and similar things. It was not especially well integrated into the Web and relied on ActiveX. Groove is now, of course, part of Microsoft.

    Wave just represents a more recent attempt in the same vein as Groove. It's a lot less anti-web than Groove ever was, and is definitely worth watching.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like