I have no idea why you would think that people somehow don’t understand market share. Contrary to what you suggest, I think people are very well aware of the dominant Windows market share on the desktop. I think you might even consider the possibility that many developers take a more sophisticated view of these numbers than Microsoft does.

And, I have no doubt at all that WPF/E is going to be fabulous from a technical point of view; as you say there are lots of smart people on the team. I have looked at the CTPs. It looks great. And I look forward to the future C# support etc. Yep. No doubt. Technically, WPF/E is going to be great. So - I would really like it to succeed. Why? Because I think it will be a great platform to develop for. Perhaps better, even, than your main competition, from a technical stand-point. Time will tell on that.

But really. Your (Microsoft’s) problems with WPF/E are not going to be technical. No. Your problems with WPF/E are going to be “people” issues; which are, of course, always the most difficult to deal with. And, from the WPF/E perspective, “people” means “developers”.

Now, of course, when “bad things” have happened before at companies, employees always get this, “We’re different now, the past is history. We must forget about the past” attitude. So, you attitude here is natural. But - here’s the deal: it doesn’t convince anyone. Microsoft will convince people by its *actions*, not its *words* on this. So there’s no point in saying “we’ve changed” all the time… if anything, that will just make people believe that you haven’t!

What does this mean? It means that if you (Microsoft) want to convince developers that you’re serious about WPF/E being a cross-platform system, you have to *over-deliver*. Why? Because otherwise, the *perception* will be that Microsoft only cares about WPF-WPF/E on Windows.

So, for example, developers will believe that Microsoft doesn’t *really* want cross-platform applications at all; and what it *really* wants is for everything to run on Windows; and that it will compete to try to prevent every other desktop OS from growing market share.

Note - I said “perception”. Forget about the reality. It’s the perception that will count. And, as I said, it’s *actions*, not *words* that will count here.

You said that WPF/E is being supported on Linux. That is news to me - last I heard, Microsoft had decided not to support Linux. So - great news!!! I think it’s a sensible decision to support Linux as a “first-class” OS. That would at least bring WPF/E in line with the competition.

Do you know when? When I go here:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/asp.net/bb187452.aspx

I see support for Windows and Mac; but nothing for Linux.

As I said though, I think it would be smart for Microsoft to over-deliver here. Imagine this (from the point of view of actions, not words)… If WPF/E supported Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and Solaris in a first-class way (with simultaneous release of the latest versions on all platforms) - it would be the *only* RIA platform to do so. WPF/E would be *the most cross-platform* developer platform on the planet. That would be great for getting developer mind-share IMHO.

Of course, the *really* smart thing to do would be to GPL WPF/E. That would really get developers talking. But I guess Microsoft might not be ready for that one yet

It will be interesting to see how WPF 2.0 makes use of DirectX 10 or not, how WPF itself becomes Vista-only (today it also runs on XP since it’s just a library).

And on top of that, you are right that Microsoft still has to prove they are competent to write cross-platform code although it’s not in their culture. Quite the opposite, most divisions suffer from the NIH syndrome and they rewrite everything to make sure it’s “for Windows”.

(Firstly: Sun’s Solaris on x86 had a 0.25% unit market share of the worldwide x86 market) - scale that to client pc’s and well i think I’ve made my point.

WPF/E is still got more to come, so no use calling the race before its finished.

All platforms and operating systems are being weigh accordingly but you have to remember that as popular as what most people think products like OSX are, they aren’t per say in terms of market share (In 2006 they accounted for roughly 3% of the US PC Market). Don’t freak out, WPF/E works on OSX.

Economy of scale needs to play a role here is what I’m pointing out, in that WPF/E with enough budget and time could potentially fit on every single platform known to man - but if the consumer base isn’t there that only complicates things for future generations of the products.

Every time WPF/E is going to open up to various flavoured operating systems, means the WPF/E runtime engine may need to grow in size so that’s also a key element in the discussion.

WPF/E is not going to be nirvana it is making leaps and bounds in not only its distribution model (which more to come) but the tools that will support it (more to come).

There are a lot of extremely smart, talented people from all walks of life and companies whom have joined to ensure this solution reaches its full potential. I mention this as Microsoft internally, strategically and culturally is not the same company it was 5 years ago.

Think about this: If I were to sit in a conference of RIA Enthusiasts and I asked the question - “How many of you use Linux as your operating system client-side” could you guess at the number of hands that would rise.

Furthermore, same question but in a Office Depot, on the street and so on… the numbers aren’t there per say - that doesn’t make it right but when it comes to economy of scale at times, we may have to sacrifice certain platforms vs. others. It’s not just about whom create the RIA with WPF/E but whom will consume them aswell and its being relevant to the mainstream.

Linux is being supported - because Microsoft has the resources available to do so and believe its a worthwhile cause - but BeOS may not get a look-in this time is all I am saying.

Microsoft is persistant in its approach to software, Windows Vista is a prime example of this and if WPF/E isn’t relevant the first release, then the second release it will be and so on..

Scott Barnes
Developer Evangelist
Microsoft.

“Now, Solaris is probably the most rock-solid mainstream Operating System on the planet.”

I’m sorry, I don’t agree, I want to see some proof and a direct comparison of Solaris stability vs Mac OS X. What exactly do you mean ‘mainstream’, does Solaris suddenly have a bigger install base now then Mac OS X?

So, we can expect only “trivial” from Microsoft then?

Of course, the rest of the world moved on from trivial a number of years ago. Everything I suggested is perfectly do-able for any large organisation that has the ability to develop software.

For example, Flash 9 is available today on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux; with Solaris (Intel and SPARC) currently on Flash 7.

Firefox 2 is available today on Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and Solaris.

Java is available today on Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and Solaris.

Now, having said that, I do take your point about market share. Taken together, Windows and Mac OS X probably have 95% of the desktops covered. But you know, if that’s your argument, they might as well ignore Mac OS X as well… and just have it run on Windows…. in Internet Explorer….

However, this isn’t just about desktop market share. This is a battle for developer *mind-share*. Developers, developers, developers… etc.

You say you just want it to work on Windows and Mac OS X. That’s a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to take.

However, if the E in WPF/E doesn’t end up standing for “Everywhere”, I suspect many developers will be left rather unimpressed… and just go use something else instead… like Flash or AJAX or even Java.

The point is: Microsoft has a lot of history that has created a lot of negative perception in the minds of web application developers. If they want to be taken seriously, it’s about time they started *over-delivering* on this cross-platform stuff, instead of looking like they’re struggling.