Next for Sun, Google, Java: Walking papers for the fat client cartel?

Next for Sun, Google, Java: Walking papers for the fat client cartel?

Summary: As my colleague Dan Farber has already pointed out,'s Stephen Shankland has penned an analysis piece that pretty much exhausts all of the possibilities that could come out of a Sun-Google partnership (being announced as I press the publish button).

TOPICS: Google

As my colleague Dan Farber has already pointed out,'s Stephen Shankland has penned an analysis piece that pretty much exhausts all of the possibilities that could come out of a Sun-Google partnership (being announced as I press the publish button).  It's worth pointing out, however, that the subset of those possibilities that got announced today will not be the end all/be all of the Sun Google relationship.  In scanning Shankland's list -- everything from Google using Sun's gear to StarOffice  playing some sort of role in Google's assault on the desktop (although it was that was casually mentioned in the announcement)  -- I wouldn't rule out any of them over an extended period of time.  

Over the duration of the newly minted relationship, the one wild card that sticks out in my mind as the most exciting possibility is the one where Google finally takes that laggard desktop Java and does something big with it. Think about it.  The ecosystem around server side Java -- known as "big Java" inside Sun but Java EE (Enterprise Edition) everywhere else --  is thriving.  So much so that the open source crowd has crashed the party (a real sign that you've got something useful to a lot of people).  The ecosystem around mobile Java -- otherwise known as J2ME -- is doing quite well too.  There's probably a gazillion phones out there with Java on them and all sorts of handset-oriented apps now finally taking advantage of that platform's  pervasiveness.  But then there's desktop Java.  Always sort of hanging around in the background occasionally getting used, but with no real killer application that has sent it into the stratosphere.

Although Sun would probably dispute this (after all, the deal has Google leveraging Sun's distribution of Java, not the other way around), desktop Java has long needed a sugar daddy.  And, as one of the few companies with the reach, the resolve (to disrupt the status quo), the cash, the Java expertise (Adam Bosworth, anyone?), and various desktop application implementations that fall an imperceptible sliver short of where desktop Java can start to take them, Google is the hottest prospect to come desktop Java's way in a long time.  Maybe forever.  With Outlook Web Access (OWA), Microsoft may have been the first to take Asynchronous Javascript and XML (AJAX) mainstream.  But, in a variety of applications from email to maps, Google has been the one to not only perfect it, but to also turn it against Microsoft.  Now, all Google must do is give the "J" in "AJAX" the dual personality that Microsoft would have never given it, and there's very little if anything that Google and Sun won't be able to deliver to our destkops that, until today, required a significant amount of local resources (processor, hard drive, memory, etc.).  Required resources by the way that are going up in the next wave of the fat client's cartel's alternative, not down.

The implications are many once Google extends the J in AJAX to equal "Java" as well as "Javascript."  Given the portability of Java code between the server, desktop, and mobile editions of that platform, one can only guess at the plethora of applications that Google will deliver on a nearly equal footing to all devices (desktops, kiosks, handsets, etc.). This has long been a part of Sun's dream for Java.  Sure, there are challenges to mirroring the functionality of a desktop application on a handset.  But, if anyone can master that challenge, Google can.  And you can also leave it to Google to make its apps irresistable based on the value it will add to your data and presence in Google's online cloud. 

Naysayers will haul out the portability card and talk about how lack of connectivity from every corner of the Earth means cloud-based computing won't be a reality any time soon.  This is FUD.  The funny thing is that I just realized how a goodly 95 percent of the computing I do  -- authoring blogs (aka: creating documents), checking e-mail, browsing the Web, chatting, uploading photos, and VoIP -- is all cloud-based.  I'm not sure when it happened, but for me, the network did indeed become the computer (as Sun has promised all along). The bottom line is that the entire planet (including the friendly skies) will be blanketed with a signal one day. That'll cover me and most of you for the remaining 5 percent of the time a thin-client approach might not otherwise work.  No wonder Google is busy on the solution right now.

The entire fat client cartel (not just Intel and Microsoft) should be concerned.  Worried? No.  Concerned? Yes.   Not because they couldn't respond technically with architectures and implementations in kind. But because they can't seem to find it themselves to break with their pasts.  For example, when I first saw the headline Dell offers an open source PC, I thought that maybe, just maybe, we were in for a breakthrough.  But, upon further inspection, it's an operating systemless desktop for $849. While that fat client cartel heads off into bloatland trying to tell us why we need fatter PCs to run fatter operating systems and fatter applications, a real opportunity exists for Google to show us why and how less can be more. Less functionality (the 10 percent that satisfies 90 percent of the users).  Less resources required locally. Fewer headaches (upgrades are easy.  you never have to do them).  Less cost.  More money in our pockets to invest in other things. 

This is not to say that Microsoft can't respond.  In fact, as Google and Sun were holding their press conference, I was on the phone with Alan Yates, Microsoft's general manager of business strategy for the Redmond-based company's nformation worker group.  I asked Yates for his thoughts regarding the potential impact of such a status-quo disrupting offering from Sun and Google.  Yates was quick to remind me that Microsoft has delivered solutions into every environment conceivable -- from browsers (ie: OWA, MSN), to PDAs, to desktops, to servers, to mobile  phones, to tablets, to a quasi-thin client environment (Windows Terminal Services) -- and that when and if the time came for Microsoft to adjust to an architectural revolution, that it wouldn't be too much trouble to adapt.  I have no reason to doubt him.

There's another implication for Microsoft and its .NET knockoff of Java. I have no doubts that Google can battle Microsoft for productivity supremacy on whatever level it wants.   Whether users start to use that alternative in ways that they're taking full advantage of it remain to be seen.  If for example, Google delivers a real thin client-based productivity suite, you still have to ditch the fat hardware to fully appreciate that suite's advantages.  Will anybody do it?  Well, that depends on what takes the place of that fat hardware and who delivers it.  Earlier this month, I speculated that a Google PC wasn't far off.  Google could go direct to the market the way Dell has but my bet is that if such a terminal sees the light of day, Google is likely to find other channels to bring it to market.  Maybe even for free.  The model has already been proven in the cell phone world where handsets are given away.  The numbers in terms of average revenue per user (aka "ARPU") just have to add up on some network operator's spreadsheet.  Comcast already rents many of us a set-top box for a nominal fee.  Why not a Google-powered terminal too?  One that does exactly what all network operators want -- a way to drive their ARPU up.  Technologically, Sun was the natural partner.  Its president and COO Jonathan Schwartz was talking up the idea of a free computer (as opposed to one that costs $100) almost a year ago.  Now, thanks to Google, that vision may be coming true.

Much to the chagrin of .NET, the net result should the various network operators become the go to market channel for Google and Sun's partnership could be a huge boost for Java as well as any other agendas that any company with its sights set on Microsoft  wouldn't mind shoving through that channel (like the OpenDocument Format).  What could be worse for Microsoft than a pair of committed competitors with the resources to cut Windows, Office, and .NET down at the knees (Bear in mind that resources are one thing.  Execution is another.)

As you consider the possibilities, take the opportunity to reminisce about the watershed stand still agreement that was inked a little more than a year ago between Sun and Microsoft.  Although the agreement had many implications (including one that put -- and still puts -- all licencees at legal risk), the one that most stands out in my mind now is the quid pro quo that was the subtext.  Even though both would have legitimate claims, Microsoft won't sue Sun for patent infringement because of StarOffice and Sun won't sue Microsoft for patent infringement over .NET.  Of the two kissing cousins (StarOffice and, is the one that got the cameo appearance at today's agreement.  Given that that's the one of the two that's technically more at legal risk than the other, I'm still not sure what to make of the honorable mention (not to mention that Sun technically isn't the official steward of even though most of the contributors are Sun employees).  The stand-still agreement, in no small way, clears the legal path for Google and other Google-like licensees (Yahoo! anyone?)  to take StarOffice to market -- Java-based or not -- without fear of  legal reprisal from Microsoft.  As far as I know, the same cannot be said of perhaps one reason that today's announcements were vague when it came to productivity suite futures.

See ZDNet's special report for additional news and views on the Sun-Google partnerhsip.

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Stupid Jokes

    Stupid jokes regarding the president do nothing more than lower your own credibility.

    Now, I don't know if I should trust anything you write.

    I'll just have to chalk it up that since this is not the first time we've been told of the predicted demise of the so-called "fat client", combined with your assinine comments about the president lowering your own credibility, that you simply don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

    Those that predicted the death of the desktop many years ago didn't then either. Of course, they weren't taking cheap shots at a sitting president either...
    Dave P.
    • The joke isn't stupid, the president is.

      As the subject says: smart joke, stupid president :-).

      • And I guess that you are a genius?

        Define "stupid" please. Someone that graduated both Harvard and Yale (c average or not) is definitely NOT stupid (BTW FD Roosevelt was a c student at only one school, so you probably think that he is also stupid?). Perhaps you disagree with his policies, if so I disagree with your opinion, by your logic that would make you stupid I suppose.

        AAMOF, everyone that I've ever met that was named Jeremy was absolutely retarded, and I bet you've never even met Bush. ;)
        Spoon Jabber
    • Dave P is right

      The joke was sent to me on email. It made me laugh. It was a weak attempt at humor, and I've never been very good at that. So, apologies for the distraction and I'm taking it down. Meanwhile, I stand by the rest of the analysis 100 percent.

      • Thanks.

        Thanks, David. I appreciate your candor and character on this.
    • Agreed...

      I actually liked the reporting in the article. I'm very excited about the idea of a Sun-Google partnership. But the political jab is unrelated and uncalled for. Way to turn-off approximately 50% (or more) of the people who will read an otherwise interesting article. Bush was re-elected -- he won the popular vote. Get over it and get back to reporting on technology.

  • Angry Rant of an Extremist


    I'm quite disappointed with your article. This doesn't sound like the balanced analysis of an executive editor, but like the angry rant of an extremist. Your name calling and labeling would have fit Scott McNeely at his worst hours. Are you trying to evangelize people to your view, or are you reporting?
    • Angry rant?

      This is my opinion as is most everything published under my byline in this blog.

      • You seem to be taking sides quite much

        I'm used to reading analysis from you. Seeing you take sides so much makes me wonder whether you're a neutral observer when you report. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying this to question your integrity. It's just that separating your blog from your "other side" is not that easy, and it'll influence how I read your articles in the future.
        • Uh, I invariably take sides in just about ..

          everything I write. I use the analysis as the rationale for the side I'm taking.

          As for neutrality, I am not sure what the smoking gun is for non-neutrality. But if it comforts you at all, in all my years as a tech journalist (going on 15 now), I've never owned stock in any of the companies I've covered nor have I accepted monies for any types of services from them, etc. etc.

          • Thank you

            For confirming all our suspicions and comments: you are a commentator favouring the anti-Microsoft side, you are not a reporter; we need to take everything you say with that in mind.

            You needn't take money from someone to be their lackey.

            So rant on, David...

            The kid
          • Favoring the anti-Microsoft side?

            I favor the side of ZDNet's readers who deserve the best solutions that technology has to offer. This is not about favoring anyone over anyone. This is about discussing the virtues of an approach that was cast aside years ago for reasons that are no longer barriers to a more efficient approach. I think outfits like are proving that there's real value in the software as a service (SaaS) approach. Although much more simplistic, "Search" proved it a long time ago. If you mean to tell me that Customer Relationship Management and business process encoding is far easier and more applicable to SaaS than a lot of what MS-Office does, I don't buy it for one minute. I believe that Microsoft is capable of such an approach and said as much. Sun and Google have less to lose by going for it now so it's easier for them to greenfield an idea like this. What have they got to lose? So, the conclusion that I'm for or against any particular company is a bad one. I'm for the best interests of ZDNet's readers.

      • Angry rant?

        I think what you and the cadre at ZSNet fail to realize is that you are viewed publicly as authorities. You are writing under the ZDNet banner, not some personal blog. Therefore, you need to maintain a balanced reporter-like viewpoint.

        It seems that you and several others at ZDNet are simply out to ensure that we all believe that Microsoft must somehow be destroyed, by supposing that every new fad that comes along (like AJAX) is the final, absolute MS killer.

        I'd suggest you get a life, and get a grip on reality. You obviously are operating in a "cloud" while the rest of the computing world is still struggling away with desktop applications: Word, Excel, Outlook and the like. By constantly looking for MS killer apps, you show your lack of independence, and your narrow viewpoint.

        The kid
        • Did I not say that Microsoft can easily respond?

          Interesting that no one is calling out the that paragraph. Think about it. The ONLY person I quoted in this blog was from Microsoft and it was a quote that balanced out my opinion. This wasn't a canned quote or one that I lifted from another Web page. This was over the phone, specifically for this story.

          Anyway, that paragraph echoed what I wrote yesterday in my blog about ODF (see

          "But just like with the ODF/PDF situation, never ever count Microsoft out. When the heat is on, it can and will respond. For starters, as was proven before when the Internet first posed a threat to the Redmond-based company, Microsoft is at it's very best when a disruptive technology is applying significant pressure (although that last time around, it didn't have to give up on its primary business model). Although it's very different than your typical browser/SaaS-based architecture, the company has its own thin client architecture (the Windows Terminal technology) thereby making Microsoft no stranger to such platforms. Also, with Outlook Web Access, Microsoft was one of the first to take AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) mainstream. There's no reason that, one or two years from now, we can't see a reinvented Microsoft with a soup to nuts thin client platform that's just as compelling, if not more-so to some, than anything else that's available."

          • Still a rant

            Your headline says it all:

            "Walking papers for the fat client cartel?
            David Berlind: Has desktop Java finally found its sugar daddy? Intel, Microsoft and the entire fat client cartel should be very worried. "

            Hardly balanced...

            The kid
        • One other point...

          I thought it was rather interesting that you said the following:

          "You obviously are operating in a "cloud" while the rest of the computing world is still struggling away with desktop applications: Word, Excel, Outlook and the like."

          Perhaps it's time for computing to not be such a struggle.

          • Hmmm.

            It was sarcasm...

            The kid
      • Anger?

        The only anger I see is from other posters who are obviously threatend by the very probable future that David describes.

        Google + zero installation + useful software = happy customers. Seems like the future to me.

    • You are the one with the angry rant. David did a nice job here.

      And, there are a lot of other journalists that share his opinion.
  • My Head is Spinning...

    I think this article is soooooo far from the real world, I just don't know where to start. David, you need to take a couple of months off and get away from everyone at zdnet, vendors, etc., then go visit some typical offices of typical employees in small and medium sized companies and home users who just bought a computer that was on sale at Best Buy. A large demand for a thin client does not exist, nor has it ever existed. This was always an insider's ivory-tower view of what the future of computing SHOULD be that had no basis in reality. An inhabitant of the real world would have told you what an absurd idea the thin client was back when it was being pushed by Sun, et al. in the mid- to late-90s. With the price of a competent Dell CPU edging below $300, and a far easier to manage OS, and a plethora of multimedia uses that didn't exist 10 years ago, the argument for the thin client is more irrelevant today than ever.
    Rodney Davis