Rick,

>Web Services are not 'Microsoft thing', so for people to rely on Microsoft to provide this scheme (although they promise it) is fairly preposperous.
>
>There is a much bigger picture of interaction that Web Services open up. Along the lines of peer to peer sharing that doesn't necessary need a payment model.

Indeed.. We're thinking about using it for the next version of our application. The money "angle" has to do with using Web Services to make interacting with internally generated data available to our current and future customers - not the general public.

That, however, brings up in my mind (and I'd be delighted to hear your opinion(s)) the notion that most web services have value when the providor controls both the application using the web service and the service itself. There's no way in H-ee-double-hockey-sticks <g> that I'd ever trust my clients to a web service that was subject to the capriciousness of some other person/business.

I come to two conclusions:

1) Web Services will mostly be private to be effective.
2) Public Web Services will be the advertisements of the future.


>
>You gotta have data to publish and guess what - most people who talk most about Web Services don't have it.

Exactly - and what company is going to publish their data except to their own customers (private), subscribers (private) or business partners (private)?


>
>
>+++ Rick ---
>
>
>>A comment I wanted to make on the frozen thread. . .
>>
>>Might the real problem at the moment (availability of pay-per-use web services) be that MS hasn't yet delivered the metering/charging mechanism(s) to enable people to do so.
>>
>>Might it be that, for MS to do so any time soon, they would have to tip their hand regarding their plans in more concrete terms?. . .In other words, if MS plans itself to be the arbitor (middleman) between service buyer/seller, saying so now is too dangerous to their plans.
>>
>>just a thought.