I want to love Mesh. I want to be part of the echo chamber that praises Ray Ozzie's grand vision of the future and ignores all the obvious reasons why it will never happen. I really do.
Because honestly, I feel alone out here. Even Mary Jo Foley, usually as honest a Microsoft critic as you can get, seems to be praising it (even while in the same post producing a list which seems to highlight just how mundane a project it is)
So I've compiled my own list. A list of all the things that would be required to happen for Mesh to even come close to succeeding. Can someone please tell me why I'm off base?
Because I don't see it and if I'm right about all of the below then Mesh stands almost no chance of success.
What's Required
Requires Every IT Company In the World to Accept Another Microsoft Platform
When Microsoft released Office 2007 they created an open Office Format to use. They submitted this open format to a standards body. They sucked up to the community to get it accept. What happend? No one but them adopted it and everyone from Governments to individual users gave them grief.
If Microsoft can't even get people to embrace open formats that they create what makes them think companies are going to rush to a platform that allows them to lock-in and control the user through their data? If you were Apple, Sony, et al. wouldn't you be looking to put every imaginable road block in front of this.
Requires Each Hardware Platform to Give Microsoft Full Control
Microsoft's vision is to give users the power to manager their devices from anywhere. That goal is a worth while one. But for it to be accomplished Microsoft has to get vendors like Sony and Apple to give full control of their OS to Microsoft. That's simply not going to happen. Steve Jobs is not going to give Microsoft the ability to control a Mac or an iPhone. Its just never going to happen.
Same with Sony and the PS3. There's no way they are going to give Microsoft that much control over their system.
Requires Security Minded People to Accept Tons of Document Copies
The rule I was always taught about data was that it becomes exponentially less secure with every copy that exists. Because every copy that exists means a whole new computer to secure which in turn means that not only do you have to consider every security issue that you did with the original copy but you also have to consider all the security issues raised by the transmission of the data between the two systems. So what I need explained is how you are going to get any security minded person or agency to accept a system where users can create new copies of every one of their documents with just the click of a button.
Requires Security Minded People to Accept Live ID
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge there were no egregious technical problems with Microsoft Passport. The problem boiled down to people not wanting to have Microsoft as their identity broker. Given that why would they turn around and accept a Live ID in the exact same capacity.
{For the Record, Microsoft says it will "look into" support for OpenID but given the architecture they've outlined I personally can't see how that would be possible}
Requires Developers to Embrace a Completely Different Paradigm
Again please correct me if I'm wrong but from everything I know or have been told most developers have moved to web based applications at this point. I'd say 95% of the computer books on the market address web based development now. Web based development has been considered the way of the future for some time.
But web based development is a completely different paradigm than Desktop development. So for Mesh to realize its potential those developers are going to have to do a complete 180 degree turn to support desktop development instead of web based development. Does this seem likely to anyone?
Requires Developers to Create an Application For Every Platform
As of right now, Microsoft has not introduced any Adobe Air like system that would allow developers to write one application and then deploy it on every platform. No where has that even been stated as a goal. In fact, I suspect part of Mesh's goal is to draw people back to Windows so I honestly don't think that is one of Microsoft's goals.
So to support the "Mesh Vision" developers would have to write a different version of their application for every different platform. That means learning different development environments, languages, APIs, etc... Does this seem practical to anyone? Wouldn't writing one web app be preferable instead?
Requires Developers to Surrender All Lock-Ins To Microsoft
Though I wish it was not so the reality is that many developers build lock-ins as a way to maintain their user base. That's why you can't get your data out of Facebook for example. For the "Mesh Vision" to work developers must essentially surrender all those lock-ins to Microsoft. That means storing your contacts in their cloud using their format, using their news feed again in their format, syncing your data using...wait for it...their format, and so on.
I have to admit, this is one of those things that I think would be better for the consumer but I can't see developers doing it. Its just too much to give up to Microsoft.
Requires Developers to Create Local Data Repositories
This is one of those cases where I have to assume Microsoft is working on a solution for the problem. But since one hasn't been announced I have to raise the issue just the same.
Most applications work on database back ends. That means, if you have to sync your application, you either have to load a personal edition of SQL onto each client PC or devise a local data repository to hold database information. Under either scenario its a lot of work for the developer which creates yet another roadblock to developer adoption of Mesh.
Requires Users To Take Charge of Their IT Destiny
This is a big one that is completely missed by the "Tech Elite" because they aren't thinking of the average user. The average user doesn't want to have to control their own destiny. They want everything pre-configured for them so they can jump on, get whatever work they have to do completed, and get off. Mesh gives the power to the user but in most cases I don't think that's power the user wants.
Requires Users To Buy Software Licenses For Each Device
This is one of those things that you won't hear mentioned until it's actually time to buy the software but I doubt anyone, including Microsoft, is going to change the rules of software licensing just for Mesh. That means an additional license for each one of those Mesh devices if you want to actually be able to USE your data on them. That's a lot of money for the consumer.
Requires Users To Open Up Their Home Life to The World
Ever have a nosey fellow employee? Imagine if that nosey fellow employee could search through your personal computer when you went to get coffee from the kitchen. Is there anything you wouldn't want them to see? Having your data persist everywhere without requiring a password (beyond an initial log on) isn't always a good thing.
Beyond that, this also requires loading all your files into the cloud with no guarantee as to what will happen. It isn't like Microsoft hasn't folded to people like the record industry before. What is to stop them from scanning your "cloud drive" for illegal music?
{For the Record, I doubt they would. But I also don't see them guaranteeing they won't}
Requires Users To Care
Beyond Power Users, who asked for this? As someone who runs an IT department for an organization full of normal people I can tell you they like it when they can't work. They don't want to carry their work everywhere with them, they don't want to work on a plane, overall they enjoy any respite from the computer that they can get.
Even remote access is generally forced on them by their boss. But Mesh seems to think that consumers will not only embrace this but will be so enthusiastic about it that they will overcome all the many factors pushing against it.
Maybe I'm just too much of a skeptic but I personally don't see that happening.