Srdjan,

There is no doubt that .Net is technically better than anything else built before - sure it is.

Microsoft has just taken for granted that developers would be forced into .net because of Windows monopoly while ignoring 2 evidences: (1) Internet (2) Capital accumulated in software.


>>Hi Hank,
>>
>>Confirmation of what we knew intuitively from various blog posts and by observing - eg- the poor % of VFP to .Net conversion.
>>
>>.Net has kept trying to catch up with existing techs like Java and Flash at the time they were dominating, and just before their decline started.
>>
>>Whatever Microsoft invested on .Net to preserve the domination of Windows is pure loss today, given the recent strategy shift.
>>
>>I hope this new strategy will work for ms, though I'm afraid that the area of on-line services is due to a price war, given its limited differential advantage (unique, defensible and sustainable)
>>
>>Another confirmation of what we often wrote here: Ballmer was all wrong.
>>
>>
>>>Interesting analysis of .Net developer numbers: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=1E5AA35A965D3234!26479&ithint=file%2Cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AHbAQ1i_GgwNxJY
>
>
>Anybody remember this article ?
>http://weblogs.foxite.com/andykramek/2005/07/06/whither-net/
>
>Hypothetical question;
>Would situation be any different today had they invested all that energy and resources into mobile/smart device development
>instead of pushing NET as if there is no tomorrow? Would their smart/mobile market share be any different ?
>I doubt.
>
>Since they love those mythical names like 'Atlas' or 'Avalon' for example, next (few) versions of NET
>might as well have code name like 'Sisyphus' maybe? Ok, ok, that was not very nice, just could not resist... ;-))
>
>Cheers :-)