4 ms·
okay ... there is more to the web, then a web browser interface. SSRS (sql services reporting services) was implemented as a webservice. Clients include BIDS (
by systems 19y ago
okay ... there is more to the web, then a web browser interface.
SSRS (sql services reporting services) was implemented as a webservice. Clients include BIDS (visual studio), and reportmanager, WMI and well maybe more
Now, what MS can do, is host my SSRS service, and I can still connect to it to deploy my reports and admin them from report manager
Why i gain is, I dont need a server to host it, upgrading to ssrs 2005 would have been as simple as a request and if they host my reporting webservice they might as well host my sql servers too.
So as you see MS is very very smart, and they will eventually host my databases and applications
Eventually my firm wont have to invest in server hardware at all and largelly reduce it IT workforce, next thing you know, I will move to MS and become an account manager, for the same company i used to work for
I would say its google who doesn't seem to get it, google docs, come oooon, an ECM (enterprise content management) is more like it , do they have this already!
- mixmax 19y agoYes MS has the ability to move to control the back-end of webservices, including hosting, databases, etc. But the problem is just that this is not a very interesting market for Microsoft. The services are pretty generic with (relatively) low barriers to entry, and a resulting low profit margin. Basically that is not where the money is.
- systems 19y agoi fail to see how SSRS is generic, its not a trivial product, and if you standardize on it to create your enterprise report, you wouldnt wonna change it same goes for sql server 2005, very complex beast okay so maybe you mean, the hosting service, not the ssrs as a serice as i first thought, well, its only a licensing thing, MS will charge other who host ssrs webservices or sql services more then it charge the user clients, it will make money from both, those who use the service and those who provide it and the thing about good or bad market, isnt really an issue, i think this model is an improvement, which mean companies will go for it anyway, its really a matter of time, and yes it may mean and should mean less money for MS, but i think less money is better than no money at all and well, one topic lead to another, capitalism and growth etc ... growth is a complex issue, the problem with increasing a company revenue period after period, is that it focus on revenue and profit growth, while growth in economics is more about welfare, with doesnt directly translate to more money, so in a way, in the future we will be richer/grower but have less cash! And MS will increase welfare, but reduce its revenues!
- mixmax 19y agoI'm not as technically proficient as you, so I might be wrong of course...