3 ms·

Great stuff. I don't know how I missed this when it was first posted. I hope Hal gets around to Part 5 at some point. From this history, ISTM that WinFS was do

Great stuff. I don't know how I missed this when it was first posted. I hope Hal gets around to Part 5 at some point. From this history, ISTM that WinFS was doomed as soon as they decided to build it on top of the "Mighty Mouse" embedded SQL Server. SQL Server is, by all accounts, a well-designed piece of software, but something doesn't become "platform layer" just because you say it is. I don't blame Microsoft's other BU's for not wanting to put what is essentially another application layer between their code and its persistent data. On another note, the proposed client use cases 10-15 years later read as almost quaint. The vast majority of photo management these days happens on the web and in HTTP-using client applications, where sharing, not editing, is the killer feature. The right client bet was not to help users manage data on their own PCs, but to take over that responsibility for them. Through SkyDrive and other "cloud" capabilities, Microsoft can do that today, but imagine if they'd started 12 years ago. Facebook only exists because they got photo sharing "good enough"; there's no reason Microsoft couldn't have beaten them to it.

csmuk 13y ago
>The vast majority of photo management these days happens on the web and in HTTP-using client applications, where sharing, not editing, is the killer feature. You'd be surprised. There are many of us who don't do social photography and use desktop photographic software and Windows' built in image management stuff. And Microsoft make more money out of us with Windows licenses than Facebook do with social photography. The right client bet was the choice of doing it where you please, which they offer(ed). However, they're pushing everything onto SkyDrive now in an "everything everywhere" approach which is a bad move. Surprisingly Apple and DIY (Linux or own software) are the only people offering choice still, or at least not nagging you about moving to the cloud.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I know there are a lot of you, and there always will be. But how many more Windows Phone licenses would Microsoft be selling if they were the online photo sharing platform instead of a distant also-ran? WinFS was the wrong strategic move because cross-device availability and network effects dwarf whatever value you can get out of a local store. It's exactly the reason web mail won for consumers.
  - csmuk 13y ago
    Note: I own a windows phone. It syncs photos with SkyDrive, allows you to post to facebook etc. It allows choice. Suprisingly, Windows has always allowed choice. Web mail won for consumers for a bit. Now it's heading towards apps and sync which are omnipresent on all platforms now. WinFS was replaced with metadata indexing which didn't incur the system-level performance hit. Metadata indexing is there on iOS, Windows at least. Edit: I don't actually take photos with my phone unless it's a quick shot of my car parked to make sure I don't get a dodgy ticket.
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  There are many of us who don't do social photography and use desktop photographic software and Windows' built in image management stuff. I fall into a different category. I do some 'social photography' as a means of personal promotion, but almost never with my iPhone's camera. Virtually 100% of the photos I upload to, say, Facebook and Instagram came out of one of my dedicated cameras, like my DSLR or digital rangefinder. All of my photos are shot in camera RAW, and I manage them in Lightroom. It wouldn't be possible for me to use built-in image management tools on OS X or Windows, or manage the photos through Finder or Explorer, respectively, since I need non-destructive photo editing. Lightroom provides non-destructive photo editing, and basically everything else I need, and provides it through their .lrcat catalog files, which, interestingly, are actually just sqlite3 databases.
  - csmuk 13y ago
    I use a DSLR, shoot raw and use Lightroom as well. In fact I just filled up 12Gb of Harry Potter studio tour today... However we're a pretty niche "prosumer" market. The really big sector is "cheapy digital compact" and use windows' tools because it's what they have and it's the least effort. The tooling is shit but it's good enough for most things. I mentioned the studio tour becuase there is a good distribution of "normal" camera owners there. The breakdown was pretty much 10% DSLR, 70% compact digital, 20% smartphone.
ams6110 13y ago
Facebook only exists because they got photo sharing "good enough" I think that's an oversimplification. There was photo-sharing before Facebook, and there were social networks with photo-sharing before Facebook. Facebook got the whole package to be "good enough" along with some luck at being in the right place at the right time.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Necessary, but not sufficient. I agree.

csmuk 13y ago

>The vast majority of photo management these days happens on the web and in HTTP-using client applications, where sharing, not editing, is the killer feature. You'd be surprised. There are many of us who don't do social photography and use desktop photographic software and Windows' built in image management stuff. And Microsoft make more money out of us with Windows licenses than Facebook do with social photography. The right client bet was the choice of doing it where you please, which they offer(ed). However, they're pushing everything onto SkyDrive now in an "everything everywhere" approach which is a bad move. Surprisingly Apple and DIY (Linux or own software) are the only people offering choice still, or at least not nagging you about moving to the cloud.

twoodfin 13y ago
I know there are a lot of you, and there always will be. But how many more Windows Phone licenses would Microsoft be selling if they were the online photo sharing platform instead of a distant also-ran? WinFS was the wrong strategic move because cross-device availability and network effects dwarf whatever value you can get out of a local store. It's exactly the reason web mail won for consumers.
- csmuk 13y ago
  Note: I own a windows phone. It syncs photos with SkyDrive, allows you to post to facebook etc. It allows choice. Suprisingly, Windows has always allowed choice. Web mail won for consumers for a bit. Now it's heading towards apps and sync which are omnipresent on all platforms now. WinFS was replaced with metadata indexing which didn't incur the system-level performance hit. Metadata indexing is there on iOS, Windows at least. Edit: I don't actually take photos with my phone unless it's a quick shot of my car parked to make sure I don't get a dodgy ticket.
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
There are many of us who don't do social photography and use desktop photographic software and Windows' built in image management stuff. I fall into a different category. I do some 'social photography' as a means of personal promotion, but almost never with my iPhone's camera. Virtually 100% of the photos I upload to, say, Facebook and Instagram came out of one of my dedicated cameras, like my DSLR or digital rangefinder. All of my photos are shot in camera RAW, and I manage them in Lightroom. It wouldn't be possible for me to use built-in image management tools on OS X or Windows, or manage the photos through Finder or Explorer, respectively, since I need non-destructive photo editing. Lightroom provides non-destructive photo editing, and basically everything else I need, and provides it through their .lrcat catalog files, which, interestingly, are actually just sqlite3 databases.
- csmuk 13y ago
  I use a DSLR, shoot raw and use Lightroom as well. In fact I just filled up 12Gb of Harry Potter studio tour today... However we're a pretty niche "prosumer" market. The really big sector is "cheapy digital compact" and use windows' tools because it's what they have and it's the least effort. The tooling is shit but it's good enough for most things. I mentioned the studio tour becuase there is a good distribution of "normal" camera owners there. The breakdown was pretty much 10% DSLR, 70% compact digital, 20% smartphone.

ams6110 13y ago

Facebook only exists because they got photo sharing "good enough" I think that's an oversimplification. There was photo-sharing before Facebook, and there were social networks with photo-sharing before Facebook. Facebook got the whole package to be "good enough" along with some luck at being in the right place at the right time.

twoodfin 13y ago
Necessary, but not sufficient. I agree.