Microsoft covets Macromedia
WARNING: lenghty, sometimes rambling, post ahead
Microsoft fears anything it doesn't control. Hence, Microsoft fears the potential of Macromedia's products and, specfically, the rich functionality that these now offer between the client and server.
The 'Soft has long desired, yet remained conflicted about, Flash from day one, always wanting a substitute technology to emerge. Why do I know this? Lets just say I became intimately familiar with Microsoft's thinking and actions in this space over the past many years.
You would be amazed at the litany of abandoned products, dead-end acquisitions, and failed standards Microsoft has pursued in its quest for a rich, multimedia, client-side experience. Each of these failed for many reasons. A few examples from this sordid history:
DirectX Media was an ActiveX pass-through that let Mickey Mouse's head to flip around in 3-D, smack-dab in the center of your webpage. Anyone who used a PeeCee in the heady days of IE4 and its 'Channels' will remember this. In traditional Microsoft form, use of DirectX Media was mandatory for websites seeking optimal placement of within IE's Channel Bar. DXMedia was difficult to use, unstable, and not cross platform. Microsoft soon abandoned its Channels strategy, and after lingering a while under the guise of CHROME (anyone remember that?) DXMedia was abandoned as well.
Instead the focus shifted to the browser itself: DHTML. There was a time when MS wanted Trident (the rendering engine for IE) to become the presentation layer for Windows. "Everything should be HTML" was the drunken mantra of the day. Of course this flavor of HTML was proprietary, archaic in syntax, and submitted to the W3C as an afterthought; likewise its implemetation (the Trident engine) was slow, a memory hog,* and buggy as hell. But low and behold, you could write a playable Asteroids game using only DHTML and script, so it must be the future of multimedia, yes?
* In computer science, the tradeoff between size and speed is common: sacrificing gain in one for loss in the other. Yet MS continues to fly in the face of conventional wisdom by sacrificing both in exchange for... what?
Alas, Trident and its sizable ambitions were eventually laid to rest, but not before we saw HTML-based UI infiltrate many corners of Windows, Office, Money, and other MS products. Want to know the #1 reason behind Windows 98's outlandish memory requirements and stability problems? One word: Trident. Anyone who's been foolish enough to use the (Over-)ActiveDesktop on a PeeCee knows the troubles of which I speak. Now the 'Soft is working on a completely new rendering engine/presentation layer designed to catch-up with Quartz. HTML-as-catch-all-mutltimedia/UI-layer is dead.
With the advent of Mozilla (an honest, W3C-approved implementation) we all know where DHTML satnds today. Interesting? Sure. Useful at times? Yes. A competitor to Flash? Certainly not. During all of this, the good folks at Macromedia kept plugging away, keeping Flash focused, small, and portable.
Continuing to search for an alternative, Microsoft discounted SVG as an invention of Adobe (which it is). Instead they introduced an incompatible 'standard' called VML (Vector Markup Language). For short while MS considered cosidered VML a stategic mutltimedia initiative; it was submitted to the W3C, and heavily used by the CHROME team. In reality, VML was created to solve a radically different problem. The Office team was trying to add 'full' HTML persistence to .doc files in Office 2000. A careful inspection of the VML standard will show it bears a remarkable resemblance to Windows' GDI graphics calls... which just happened to be the way Office documents persisted snapshots of embedded content (spreadsheets, charts, etc.). VML's multimedia plans were abandoned with CHROME, but it'll live on in Office 'til the end of time. 'Nuff said.
Last I heard, Microsoft's multimedia eggs were in the SMIL basket (SMIL = Syncrhonized Multimedia Integration Languagem, another W3C spec). In fact, MS acquired and introduced a product with SMIL authoring in mind, only to turn it into an authoring environment for PowerPoint.
And ultimately, this last example demonstrates a common thread at the root of its many failures in this space: Microsoft does not wish to enter the multimedia authoring space.
Unless it directly benefits Windows or Office, there just isn't enough money in it to justify Microsoft's effort. At one point, the Windows Media Division presented an ambitious plan to popularize its media formats by building a suite of authoring tools; the plan was rejected for this exact reason. Visual Studio (another authoring environment) lost money for many, many years before becoming profitable. But this loss was tolerated since it created a market of applications for Windows.
ANYWAY, let me wander back to the original point: despite its many attempts, Microsoft's scattershot responses have not unseated the king of web multimedia: Flash. So why didn't Microsoft acquired Macromedia sooner? Why wait all this time? A few reasons
1. Not invented here. Microsoft would've preferred to develop a solution in-house.
2. Fear of multimedia authoring as unprofitable (actually, not-profitable-enough for Microsoft's liking).
3. Multimedia has always been a relatively low priority for Microsoft; its real focus over the past several years has been penetrating the server space with NT and killing Java with .NET.
Okay, so why the change of heart? If the acquisition rumors are true (and I believe they are), what has changed? What does MS see in Macromedia now that they didn't before?
1. Macromedia has moved far beyond the multimedia authoring space. With the acquisition of ColdFusion, they started competing in an area where Microsoft still feels threatened. (ColdFusion has given folks in the Visual Studio team fits for years).
2. Flash has cross-browser and cross-platform penetration & functionality that no other rich browser technology has yet achieved. Hundreds of millions of people use it, and Microsoft loves to control widely-popular, dominant technologies.
3. Flash today is about much more than the client. Microsoft looks at the combination of Flash, the Remoting & Communication Servers, then ColdFusion and its integration with Java on the back-end and sees one thing: a popular, end-to-end (client to webserver to business logic) solution in which the 'Soft controls nothing. No browser control (DHTML is bypassed with Flash), no language control (ActionScript and Java will do just fine), no server control (IIS and .NET aren't mandatory) and no OS control (many of these products don't require Windows).
As if this were unbearable enough, there's a final nail in the coffin:
4. Flash MX does cross-platform video streaming and conferencing. With its pentration, Flash sits on the cusp of becoming the solution for broadband web authoring. Unlike standalone clients, Flash builds everything into the plugin. And Flash MX takes care of webcam and audio configuration for you, seamlessly, on both Macs and PeeCees. And all this A/V goodness happens without using a single Windows Media codec or server. Ouch.
Before ending this far-too-long post, let me conclude with my top 5 predictions should Microsoft acquire Macromedia:
1. All Macromedia server products are kept or become Windows-only.
2. Multimedia authoring tools remain Mac & Windows.
3. Java support is dropped from all products (or becomes "J#", aka Java .NET).
4. The bulk of Flash Communication server becomes part of the Windows Media product line. All Flash audio & video becomes Windows Media-based.
5. Flash is annointed the chosen front-end for .NET development.
As you may have guessed, Microsoft acquiring Macromedia is not something I feel would benefit the computer industry at large. Yet I personally doubt the acquisition will happen, as it would be an awfully bold move in light of recent antitrust business. As a Mac user, I hope my prediction is more than wishful thinking.
That's all, folks.
