Microsoft redefines the term RIA. Literally !! | The Coffeehouse

Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.

Yessssss. Begun, the clone wars have.

RIA degradation

JD wrote:

source

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but Microsoft staff blogs today are lockstepping on the phrase "rich interactive applications" (as if there are applications which aren't interactive!), which risks muddying the five-year-old phrase Rich Internet Applications. Intentional, or just clumsy? I can't tell the motive. The similarity between the MAX and MIX conferences might be coincidence too.

JD comment wrote:

Recap: Microsoft is degrading the term "RIA", trying to disassociate it from its roots by attempting to redefine it. It might still be just naive obliviousness, but it's looking increasingly like a conscious deception.

Mary Jo Foley wrote:

source

Nearly everyone in the tech industry uses RIA as an acronym for "Rich Internet Applications." But not Microsoft.

Microsoft up to their old tricks again, being deliberately deceptive? Silver light, Flash… Rich Internet Applications, Rich Interactive Applications.

Is Microsoft trying to turn others innovations into a perception of their own doing?
Or it is both brash(foolhardy) and smart marketing?

jamie

but Windows invented the internet!

Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.

jamie wrote:

but Windows invented the internet!

You may want to provide a punch line, as someone will take that seriously. Tongue Out

In anycase i just don't get it.

Is the only way to win underhandedness ?

Has Microsoft not a strong enough foothold to play on a level field yet ?

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

Sorry, how is this going to achieve anything?

It kinda reminds me of the RAID, Redundant Array of Inexpensive / Independent Discs thing - has it harmed the perception at all? No.

Or is this some sort of orwellian "language affects thought" argument?

Bah, I'd never heard the abbreviation RIA until yesterday anyway.

jamie

interesting. someone should do an audio "Webcast" about this

Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.

Massif wrote:
Sorry, how is this going to achieve anything?

It kinda reminds me of the RAID, Redundant Array of Inexpensive / Independent Discs thing - has it harmed the perception at all? No.

Or is this some sort of orwellian "language affects thought" argument?

Bah, I'd never heard the abbreviation RIA until yesterday anyway.

It’s just kind of sly that they take a grassroots term and turn it into their own definition.

It’s good marketing I’ll give them that but deceptive all the same.

Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.

jamie wrote:
interesting. someone should do an audio "Webcast" about this

Very, and I agree. Definitly do the research first. I didn't coin the term so can't say *for sure*.

Be sure to interview Scott Barnes. Came to MS in Dec 2006, was a flex/Adobe fan before that. However i would think that MS PR might have something to say.

jamie

err.. aka webcast = ms version of podcast

CannotResolveSymbol
{insert caption here}

FWIW, it looks like Microsoft didn't come up with the alternate name... I see it referenced in a (rather expensive Tongue Out

) report from over a year ago:

http://store.ovum.com/Product.asp?tnpid=&tnid=&pid=35397&cid=0 wrote:
As surely as winter follows autumn, the software industry continually presents us with new programming models. The latest is rich Internet applications (RIA), which have been around for quite a few years waiting for an architecture on which it can be deployed. One of the problems with this name is that whenever the words ‘rich’ and ‘Internet’ appear next to each other, it is commonly taken to assume that they mean multimedia, music and video, not data and business applications. A better description for these classes of applications is ‘rich interactive client applications. ‘Rich’ suggests that they offer more than a simple browser-based application and ‘interactive’ indicates that these are more than simply presentation layers. Rich interactive applications (RIA) are at the centre of the drive to make the experience of a user's interaction with software applications matter more. It is a mix of technologies and approaches that take the strengths of both browser-based clients and standalone desktop applications, while liberating the user from their constraints. This report poses the question of whether we are still in the hype cycle where promises are made whether or not the technology is able to back them up – or have we reached a point where the technology and costs make this a feasible benefit for the business?

(emphasis mine)

I don't know if these are the people who originally coined the term, but it looks like Microsoft isn't alone in redefining RIA and they've got a good reason for doing so.

Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.

jamie wrote:
err.. aka webcast = ms version of podcast

I'd rather enjoy an Adobe / MS park Wink

Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:
FWIW, it looks like Microsoft didn't come up with the alternate name... I see it referenced in a (rather expensive ) report from over a year ago:

http://store.ovum.com/Product.asp?tnpid=&tnid=&pid=35397&cid=0 wrote: As surely as winter follows autumn, the software industry continually presents us with new programming models. The latest is rich Internet applications (RIA), which have been around for quite a few years waiting for an architecture on which it can be deployed. One of the problems with this name is that whenever the words ‘rich’ and ‘Internet’ appear next to each other, it is commonly taken to assume that they mean multimedia, music and video, not data and business applications. A better description for these classes of applications is ‘rich interactive client applications. ‘Rich’ suggests that they offer more than a simple browser-based application and ‘interactive’ indicates that these are more than simply presentation layers. Rich interactive applications (RIA) are at the centre of the drive to make the experience of a user's interaction with software applications matter more. It is a mix of technologies and approaches that take the strengths of both browser-based clients and standalone desktop applications, while liberating the user from their constraints. This report poses the question of whether we are still in the hype cycle where promises are made whether or not the technology is able to back them up – or have we reached a point where the technology and costs make this a feasible benefit for the business?

(emphasis mine)

I don't know if these are the people who originally coined the term, but it looks like Microsoft isn't alone in redefining RIA and they've got a good reason for doing so.

I emphasized another point above.

The thing is why not Rich Desktop Applications or something else, why create an ambiguity toward a term unless.. unless you want to piggy back off it and redirect it’s popularity toward your products in order to gain marketing clout.

All applications internet or otherwise are interactive, so why that term? Could we compare that to say.. having 2 different formats named RSS? Would that not create confusion?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Randolpho
Hacker On Steroids

The way I see it, Microsoft is being quite open about their redefinition of RIA. They're trying to imply that Silverlight and XBAP (and maybe even full-out WPF) can provide a more rich, more interactive experience than plain DHTML (or AJAX if you prefer the newer buzzword), or Flash, or Java applets.

Yes, it's marketing. It may even be true.

But I don't see it as outright deceptive.

Dr Herbie
Horses for courses

Sourcecode wrote:
The thing is why not Rich Desktop Applications or something else, why create an ambiguity toward a term unless.. unless you want to piggy back off it and redirect it’s popularity toward your products in order to gain marketing clout.
All applications internet or otherwise are interactive, so why that term? Could we compare that to say.. having 2 different formats named RSS? Would that not create confusion?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

I think that it's to do with the blurring of the internet and the desktop and not wanting to make distinction between them. Smart clients may or may not be using the internet and the user shouldn't really care, so the developers need to move away from thinking of the desktop and the internet as two separate things (because the developer's mental approach always affects the software they write). This appears to be the direction that a lot of MS developers think things will move: internet/desktop merged into one; so terms need to remove explicit reference to either.

My 2p worth ...

Herbie

Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.

Randolpho wrote:
The way I see it, Microsoft is being quite open about their redefinition of RIA. They're trying to imply that Silverlight and XBAP (and maybe even full-out WPF) can provide a more rich, more interactive experience than plain DHTML (or AJAX if you prefer the newer buzzword), or Flash, or Java applets.

Yes, it's marketing. It may even be true.

But I don't see it as outright deceptive.

The thing is if you don't yet know what RIA is and google it in a couple months.. guess what comes first...and what would your first conclusion would be.

edit : Perhaps deceptive is a bit hard.

wkempf

Do a Google search for "rich interactive application". I get 10 hits. None of them are MS related (obviously Google hasn't caught up to recent blog posts yet). Interestingly, though, at least 2 out of 10 are directly linked to Adobe. Should we accuse them of being deceptive instead?

I think the rebranding of RIA is stupid. Interactive makes no sense, and whether for good or evil purposes, it is a rewriting of history. But I'm not going to attack MS or its employees for doing so.

Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.

Dr Herbie wrote:

Sourcecode wrote: The thing is why not Rich Desktop Applications or something else, why create an ambiguity toward a term unless.. unless you want to piggy back off it and redirect it’s popularity toward your products in order to gain marketing clout.
All applications internet or otherwise are interactive, so why that term? Could we compare that to say.. having 2 different formats named RSS? Would that not create confusion?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

I think that it's to do with the blurring of the internet and the desktop and not wanting to make distinction between them. Smart clients may or may not be using the internet and the user shouldn't really care, so the developers need to move away from thinking of the desktop and the internet as two separate things (because the developer's mental approach always affects the software they write). This appears to be the direction that a lot of MS developers think things will move: internet/desktop merged into one; so terms need to remove explicit reference to either.

My 2p worth ...

Herbie

Oh I agree we are moving into internet/desktop into one type of app Apollo/WPF.

The problem is it’s a known term in the space and used heavily by Adobe to describe their/that technology space, not to mention other companies as well. I’ve seen what they describe for the desktop as Rich Desktop Applications or Rich Internet Desktop Applications. What’s wrong with thoes?

The only real reason I can see for now as to why take the same acronym and redefine It.. is marketing. Why “interactive” why not connected or any of the hundreds of better ways to define it. They choose a word with an I. To me, looks strange.

I mean even the samples for Silverlight are copied almost directly from the Flash/Flex space.

case in point Page Flip.

They can't even innovate a sample ?? I’m happy MS is moving into the space makes for interesting things to happen. But come on WOW me for god’s sake.

Do I want to see just MS in this space definitely not, otherwise they will kill it eventually with a crap product that doesn’t evolve, and that has no innovation.

Would I like to see just Adobe in this space? No freaking way! MS will keep them innovating.

I hope it turns out 50 – 50, or at least 60 - 40.

I’ll let you assume whom I prefer with the 60. Tongue Out

odujosh
Need Microsoft SUX now!

Do you guys honestly get anything out of arguing about what acronym they use Smiley

Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.

odujosh wrote:
Do you guys honestly get anything out of arguing about what acronym they use

Not arguing, but discussing. Smiley

It’s not about an acronym it’s about the way in which MS is trying to change it.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Sourcecode wrote:

odujosh wrote:Do you guys honestly get anything out of arguing about what acronym they use

Not arguing, but discussing.

It’s not about an acronym it’s about the way in which MS is trying to change it.

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Okay, granted, Microsoft really shouldn't be touching a well-known acronym, but how "Interactive" really less descriptive than "Internet", considering modern web-apps are being designed to run offline.

But I guess this is from the Department of Redundancy Department, since "Rich [..] Application" and "Interactive" both have the same connotations.

Sampy
This will be the sixth time we have destroyed it and we have become exceedingly efficient at it

A rhetorical trick. It makes a great opening paragraph in a keynote that not only provides distinction for your products but a common thread you can weave through the discussion.

I'd do something similar if I was trying to show how my tech was "game changing." Clever job boys.

AndyC

Vague marketing buzzword redefined to equally vague marketing buzzword. Remind me again why I should care?

Personally I think Microsoft's marketing missed a trick by not referring to it as Web 3.0, but what do I know eh?