Oh Yeah!!! I mean OUYA!!!

Tech blogs and sites are talking about OUYA. OUYA is not a gaming console for the Kindle Fire or the Droid Razr but rather for the “old school” screen, the television. My research shows that OUYA is composed of a slick cube shaped console and a controller.  

OUYA's application programming interface (API) and its documentation, which are accessible via the OUYA website, show that the API clean and lightweight. The system is written on the Google’s Android OS which is written in Java. The OUYA API consists of six Java classes and it looks like the developers will have to develop interfaces on how they want the OUYA console to interface with their games. It’s a smart approach. The responsibility on how a game should interface with the OUYA is on the developers and not on the OUYA staff.

What does this mean for the gaming companies? The companies like ZYNGA and EA will need to have resources who will code the OUYA functionality for all of their games. The companies would also need to host their games. Can we repeat the words, “CLOUD COMPUTING” (again).  

What does the OUYA platform mean for customers? This approach is truly disruptive. This opens up the platform for traditional Java developers like me which in turn means more games will be developed.  

What does the OUYA platform mean for the business world? Businesses can now buy services where specific games can be built for their business needs. Game based learning is rapidly evolving into the main stream business. For instance the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently exploring games to train the next generation of Air Traffic Controllers. With a platform like OUYA, FAA can develop games a lot less cost since Java developers are not that expensive and publish these games to train new Air Traffic Controllers or even get a high school age person interested in managing air traffic.  

Even though the possibilities of OUYA are great, I worry about the security threats with a platform like OUYA. OUYA security access controls are based on its open source Android operating system (OS) and stores like Google Play don’t test the games for malicious code. Unless this policy has recently changed, OUYA may not be adopted by large organizations. If OUYA can provide a secure app store, OUYA’s potential is quite high otherwise it’s to be determined (TBD).  

In closing I will know that OUYA is successful when Stuart Scott to say “OUYA” rather than “Boo Yah” on ESPN SportsCenter.  Here is also a video I found on the OUYA website.

Is Microsoft really the dark side?

Unlike some of colleagues and friends, I have worked mostly with open source products and I like the open source world. Most of the technology is well built and there is a community of developers, testers and business sponsors who spend alot of time and money to get the product right. There seems to be a common understanding that open source technology is flexible enough where it can be customized to a certain requirement and they cost is minimal when working with Microsoft.

On the other hand, Microsoft tends to dictate when its new products and technologies are going to released. They also dictate how their products should be licensed and flexibility is minimal. As a technologist, they seem to black box all of their technology.

Here are some of typical complaints regarding Microsoft:
Not Best of Breed
I have heard people complain left and right that their product is not the best of breed. For example their SQL Server product line is not the best relational database and it is ideal for small to medium implementations.

Tie Their products to the Windows Operating System
A few years ago, the technology community was complaining that Microsoft tied their internet browser, the Internet Explorer, to the operating system and that is how they beat their competition in the internet browser space

They eye-gouge their customers with licenses and other products
More and more end users are complaining that Microsoft is clamping down on how licenses are tracked in their software. It's now ever harder to steal their software.

I admit that these are valid complaints and lately I have realized their products aren't that bad.

Things I like about Microsoft products:
Their products integrate well together. I used to take this fact for granted until I worked with Oracle suite of products. Oracle's products don't talk to other products but they don't even talk to each other.

Their products are easy to use.
Beginning with their Windows product line, Microsoft products are easy to use and they are visually appealing to their end users. Until three or four years ago, Java didn't have robust debugging in their various IDEs. I remember working with Visual Studio many years ago and I still remember that their debugging was the best. SQL Server has had a great Graphical User Interface (GUI) for many years. During this Oracle only provided SQL*Net.

Even though we complain Microsoft is being selfish and opportunistic as business. I have to say that they have never sacrificed their core capabilities which is:
their products are easy to use and their products integrate well with each other. It is true that their products aren't the best in the breed but at least theywork.

In the last year or two, I have been extremely disappointed in how Oracle products are built and how they work. All of Oracle's products are tied to the database product line. You look at their JMS implementation, their PL/SQL based web services, their ESB which is tied to their database, etc., and etc. Oracle is doing the same thing as Microsoft did. As Microsoft tied their products to their operating system, we see that Oracle is currently tying their products to the database. If I were a CIO or the CTO, I wouldn't buy anything from Oracle other than their relational database products.

Unlike Microsoft, IBM sells their products for an extremely high price. Their products work well, unfortunately I wouldn't trust IBM since their business practices are questionable.

The biggest competition for Microsoft is Google. I am still wondering what is Google. Google sells online advertising, they have a search appliance and bunch of software products which are good but they don't address any core requirement. They seem to create a buzz on how they market their products. For instance, remember how they created a buzz for their email capability. They gave email accounts via email invites which created a buzz. They are geniuses in viral marketing but they really don't have a product. What I mean by a product, if I were to liquidate Google then what would I sell. Their search technology, their online software and their advertising business and now their mobile software. According my sources in US Department of Justice, Google's Android software is currently used by alot hackers to hack into mobile phone. Things like this make wonder...Is Google really out there to improve our lives or just market themselves a higher profit margin.

Yahoo! - I like Yahoo!. I have been a loyal customer of Yahoo! from 1996. They categorize and sell information, information products and more. I really like their stuff and their product might suffer a little when Microsoft buys them but I would rather see Microsoft buy them than Google beat them.

In conclusion, I still prefer open source technologies but I now also appreciate the value of Microsoft. They are not that bad after all.