Why Microsoft wins: the Internet and Windows

[Andy Sjostrom]

Ask your friend what the Internet is, and you will get an answer that is either about the Web or e-mail. Perhaps both. Microsoft will win in this market because they focus on making the Internet mobile, and not on creating some new "Mobile Internet" beast.<br /><br />The Mobile Internet. I saw a huge poster with those words at a telecom exhibition three years ago. The logotype beneath was Ericsson's. What they really were talking about were Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) and Short Messaging Services (SMS), two standards completely unrelated to the Internet.<br /><br />My opinion regarding information vs the Internet is in essence: If it is not available on the Internet, it does not exist. I believe in the Internet. I do not believe in the proprietary sphere labeled, dishonestly by mobile phone makers and mobile network operators, as the "Mobile Internet".<br /><br />Ericsson is not alone. Nokia and the rest of the gang continues to play the old proprietary game. Take a look at <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2362">infoSync's review of Nokia 7650</a>. The Nokia 7650 is supposed to be Nokia's super phone for the Mobile Internet. Did you notice the absence of a Web browser? Jörgen writes: "...the 7650 isn't capable of browsing standard HTML pages but only WAP pages..."<br /><br />I haven't used a Nokia 7650 myself, so I can't confirm. But if this is true, and Jörgen usually is well informed, I both extremely surprised (how else achieve a mobile Internet) and not surprised at all (Nokia...).<br /><br />Enter Microsoft: the company that turned itself around in 1995 and embraced the Internet, and since then has ensured that each and every product it makes is tied to the Internet in one way or the other. The strategy is crystal clear: Embrace and Extend. (Quite an interesting aspect of the 1995 turnaround is that before the turnaround, there were plans to try to replace the Internet with the proprietary MSN Network. Deja Vu, Nokia?)<br /><br />Embrace the old and proprietary: SMS, WAP and so on. Microsoft Pocket PC 2002 Phone Editions and Smartphones all embrace these standards. Microsoft even acknowledges the role of the players. Today, the mobile network operator (carrier) is seen as "owning" the user. In my opinion, the mobile network operator is nothing more than an ISP, a bit pipe. But Microsoft does not care about my opinion. Microsoft cares about the real state of things. Thus make carrier priority One. Embrace.<br /><br />Extend. What does Microsoft to this world? Well, two major building blocks: real Internet connectivity and the Windows platform.<br /><br />Microsoft continues to bet on the standards that runs the Internet today: TCP-IP, HTTP, HTML, XML, GIF, JPG, MP3 etc., etc. The bets are integrated into Microsoft's efforts to make the Internet mobile. When the average user starts to realize that Microsoft brings the Internet as she understands it to mobile devices, then we'll see some very interesting market dynamics happening. The Windows platform is familiar to the user, developer, and corporates alike. Making Windows mobile is a key factor in their success.<br /><br />Two cups of embracing telecom standards and products. Seven spoonfuls of successful partnerships with carriers and Asian mobile device makers. Extend it all with Windows and the (real) Internet. Bake for yet another two years, and we have a winner. What do you think?

[PlayAgain?]

I'd be curious to know what's proprietry about SMS, MMS and WAP since I don't know of any one company that owns all these. While you're at it, tell me about Palladium.

The 7650 is short-changing on a HTML browser (though there is one available for a quite modest price), but at least the manufacturer is confident to sell the device.

Enter the P800, the spec on that rocks! The only thing that doesn't support is WMA.... but that's proprietry - the standards for media are MP3 and RA 8)

[Arne Hess]

I'd be curious to know what's proprietry about SMS, MMS and WAP since I don't know of any one company that owns all these. While you're at it, tell me about Palladium.

The 7650 is short-changing on a HTML browser (though there is one available for a quite modest price), but at least the manufacturer is confident to sell the device.

Enter the P800, the spec on that rocks! The only thing that doesn't support is WMA.... but that's proprietry - the standards for media are MP3 and RA 8)
I love your feedback! I had this dicsussion so many times with Andreas, I'm tired about it!
At least he is always blaming WAP but what is WAP, an screen optimized Internet access, not more/not less! I believe that we will not see to many people, surfing the "real" Internet (web) on a Smartphone 2002 but might be doing it on WAP 2.0 which is screen optimized and supports: "TCP/IP, XML, GIF, JPEG, MP3". Andreas, you see something? The discussion you are always staring is past, 3 years ago - like you said!!! And 3 years ago there was NO GPRS fo a convenient "real" Internet access and the first idea, to deliver Internet contents through SMS as the bearer service was the right one!

[JonathanWardRogers]

Why is it that when Microsoft advertised the Pocket PC's internet features they were bashed for false advertising, but when phone manufacturers state that their phone has "mobile internet" or "web browsing" it's ok?

There is no "mobile internet". There is only the internet. And WAP, however standard it may be, is not web browsing. The World Wide Web gets its name from the fact that it spans the globe and is interconnected with itself. WAP is just a format for presenting information using a limited subset of features, and geared towards text devices and other limited display devices.

Just my .02 USD

[Jimmy Dodd]

I'm not sure if I agree with you or not Andy, because I'm not sure what you are saying. While it is true that most people think of the Internet as how they transfer email and web pages, the only reason is that that is what they mainly use it for. Not too many years ago you could ask people the same question and they would have said email and ftp and telnet (OK, maybe a couple would have said Gopher). The Internet is the medium for the transfer, not the data itself. Regardless of how marketing folk try to sell services on it that doesn't change. If SMS is run across it that's fine. Same goes for WAP. These are meerly tools for transferring data from one device to another (limited) device. It would be great if every device could handle full HTML but they can't. My phone lines are so bad at home that I turn off display of images when browsing. Does that mean I'm not using the "real" Internet because I choose speed over loss of some (often superfluous) content? I don't think so.

Now the rest of your post goes on to talk about MS "winning" by embracing and extending all of these protocols. Isn't Nokia and Ericson embracing SMS and WAP? Why does MS get credit for it but not everyone else. Who's to say that, as bandwidth, processing power, and battery life increase Nokia and Ericson won't be extending their services? Am I missing your point here?

I agree that MS is way ahead of the phone guys when it comes to supporting Internet access. After all, the Internet has been connecting computers with land lines for years (decades, actually). It is only in recent years that cell phones (and mobile devices in general) have reached the processing power to even attempt to join in this network. I believe that MS will continue to dominate the "full featured" Internet for years (of course, I don't think they support Gopher anymore). I also believe that there is room for a diverse range of devices and, yes, protocols and feature sets to accompany them. I doubt we will ever get to a point where every device is equal in capabilities. I'm not sure that should be the goal anyway.

Or maybe I just don't get it.

---
Bwana Jim

[Andy Sjostrom]

Arne!
I am sorry! I can't help my passionate feelings when it comes to the Internet mobile vs the "Mobile Internet". I know we've had this discussion a thousand times, and most often we seem to conclude that we agree on more things than we disagree. I appreciate you patience with me, even though you're getting tired of me! :wink:

Back to the subject!
Why do so many carrier side debaters assume that because Web content is currently designed with desktop PCs in mind, the only way to get Internet content onto a mobile device is using WAP, WML and SMS? In fact, it is possible to describe a Web page in HTML and fit it just as nicely on a small screen as with WML. From a design perspective, there is no need for another mark up language. In my opinion, WAP and WML was the answer to low bandwidth communication, at best. As wireless bandwidth increase the issue is no longer there. WAP and WML has no problem to solve. The window is closing. The only people wanting it to stay open is the "Mobile Internet"-people. By effectively keeping real Internet connectivity far from mobile devices, they can build "walled gardens" and charge premium for "Mobile Internet" services. This is what I see as proprietary, not nescessarily the standards themselves. I am sorry for not having made that distinction in the first place.

SMS is the same story. It is just a matter of time before SMS dies in favor of "Internet SMS" -- the middle way between e-mail and Instant Messaging:

1. Phone_1 gets IP number from server.
2. Server associates Phone_1's phone number with Phone_1's IP number.
3. Phone_2 sends message to Phone_1's phone number
4. Server routes message to Phone_1's IP number
5. If Phone_1 is online, message is sent immediately
6. If Phone_1 is offline, message is stored on server and sent when Phone_1 comes back online

I know this is a bit overview, but all it takes is a couple of Internet servers (DHCP and Web server) and the client application.

All in all, this is a won battle already. The Internet wins, and the company betting on that outcome has the best chance of winning the mobile devices market.

[Andy Sjostrom]

oh, I forgot mentioning WHY carriers don't want SMS messages to come across the Internet. An SMS message costs 10-500 times as much to send as an iSMS message. Take away that revenue from any carrier, and we'll end up with some pretty sad "Mobile Internet"-people.

[Jimmy Dodd]

Why is it that when Microsoft advertised the Pocket PC's internet features they were bashed for false advertising, but when phone manufacturers state that their phone has "mobile internet" or "web browsing" it's ok?

There is no "mobile internet". There is only the internet. And WAP, however standard it may be, is not web browsing. The World Wide Web gets its name from the fact that it spans the globe and is interconnected with itself. WAP is just a format for presenting information using a limited subset of features, and geared towards text devices and other limited display devices.

Just my .02 USD

I think the Pocket PCs got bashed because they advertised Internet Access without mentioning you had to buy a modem, and sign up with an ISP, and have a phone line to do it. Not because they didn't have a browser. That was the issue with the HP class action suit, anyway.

I agree that there is no "mobile Internet." It's a silly marketing slogan that everyone seems to be using. There is, however, mobile access to the Internet. And, again, I contend that HTML is not the Internet. It is simply one of many standards for transferring data across the Internet. WAP is another, designed for a limited display, limited bandwidth device. Claiming it is as rich as an experience as HTML is dishonest, but it does have its place.

---
Bwana Jim

[glebd]

Smartphone is mostly about talking, and as practice shows, sending short messages. I can't imagine browsing ordinary web pages using a smartphone screen, be it Nokia 7650 or MS Stinger. Unless, of course, one is OK with constant scrolling back and forth. imode could become popular, especially with GPRS when you are not charged by time. But full-scale HTML on a tiny screen? No, thanks.

[mikeschmidt]

Personally, I think it sucks to browse HTML on my PDA unless it is formated for the device. What standard dictates that a webpage should support 240x320? If I want fast information (weather, movies, scores, news), I use WAP in Pocket IE.

Don't get me wrong, I visit the PocketPC formated sites, but if you want to surf the web with pictures why would you use a phone? I saw the survey about replacing the laptop with a PDA, now we want a phone to replace the PDA. Yes I said that correct. The N7650 and similar devices are phones first.

[Andy Sjostrom]

glebd!
A question for you! Assume we have a soccer score page being updated every two minutes for one specific game:
"ENG vs ARG 1-0"

Why would I need WAP and WML to get that to a mobile device, instead of HTTP and HTML? "Full-scale HTML" does not have to be 1024 x 768 and 1 MB of pictures...

[Andy Sjostrom]

BwanaJim!
This your core statement, in my opinion:

"I agree that MS is way ahead of the phone guys when it comes to supporting Internet access."

My point is that what really counts today and tomorrow is the Internet. If you are ahead with what counts, then you are ahead period. The fact that Microsoft now ALSO embraces what the phone guys have been doing for quite some time is excellent. The phone guys apparantly are not too interested in getting to serious with Internet access, are they?

[Arne Hess]

glebd!
A question for you! Assume we have a soccer score page being updated every two minutes for one specific game:
"ENG vs ARG 1-0"

Why would I need WAP and WML to get that to a mobile device, instead of HTTP and HTML? "Full-scale HTML" does not have to be 1024 x 768 and 1 MB of pictures...

Because WAP gives me PUSH but why does I need WAP anyway here? Let me do it through SMS or better MMS - this pushes me the goals in real-time (including a picture of the goal on MMS). So where is the reason for a limited/screen optimized HTML here!?

[glebd]

glebd!
A question for you! Assume we have a soccer score page being updated every two minutes for one specific game:
"ENG vs ARG 1-0"

Why would I need WAP and WML to get that to a mobile device, instead of HTTP and HTML? "Full-scale HTML" does not have to be 1024 x 768 and 1 MB of pictures...

Because WAP gives me PUSH but why does I need WAP anyway here? Let me do it through SMS or better MMS - this pushes me the goals in real-time (including a picture of the goal on MMS). So where is the reason for a limited/screen optimized HTML here!?

Arne, thanks for answering a question for me :)

The technology should help us to perform our tasks, and the best technology for a given task should win the game. There is no point in squeezing an elephant into a matchbox and be proud about it :)

[Jimmy Dodd]

Andy, I think we are agreeing but I'm not sure. :D

I think MS will come out "winning" on this one too for the obvious reason that, in consumerism, more is usually better (at least it sells better). I doubt that limited WWW browsing will flourish over time, as processing power, et. al. push for a richer browsing experience.

I think we disagree on the issue of WAP, etc. not being part of the Internet, though, as I still contend that these subset protocols are a valid means of data transfer. Whether they will be around in five years is anyone's guess - most of that depends on hardware advances. I do believe they serve a valid service now, though.

Finally, I think we are in agreement on a preference for service providers as a means to get to the Internet, not as a provider or translater of data. I look forward to an Internet experience in which I can go anywhere I want regardless of my access method, not to a limited portal that gives me access to what the provider decides to translate for me a la Palm VII. I prefer the idea of an ISP being only a "bit pipe" (as you put it) with my only barrier to data being the data provider using a protocol I can use, be it HTML, WAP, XML, or whatever.

---
Bwana Jim

[Andy Sjostrom]

I don't believe I really need WAP / WML / SMS / MMS here at all. :D

Push can be done over the real Internet, too. If the carriers and phone makers really wanted the real Internet they would start talking about rolling out infrastructure to support IP numbers to all connected phones. Then they should describe how IP / HTTP will be used to pull and push content on the Internet, using their networks!

[Jimmy Dodd]

glebd!
A question for you! Assume we have a soccer score page being updated every two minutes for one specific game:
"ENG vs ARG 1-0"

Why would I need WAP and WML to get that to a mobile device, instead of HTTP and HTML? "Full-scale HTML" does not have to be 1024 x 768 and 1 MB of pictures...

Because WAP gives me PUSH but why does I need WAP anyway here? Let me do it through SMS or better MMS - this pushes me the goals in real-time (including a picture of the goal on MMS). So where is the reason for a limited/screen optimized HTML here!?

WAP gives you PUSH technology? Are you saying it's a connection oriented protocol? Or does it work more like SMS where each data transfer is independant?

---
Bwana Jim

[adamz]

I agree with Andy. We've already got a fully functional messaging protocol on the internet... it's called email. And we've already got a fully functional content browsing and delivery method... it's called the world wide web.
Why do I need email and SMS? Both deliver text based messages. Why do I need WAP and HTTP/WWW? Both allow me to access information. It just happens that WAP doesn't allow complex UI designs traditionally aimed at desktop browsers. It's easier for developers to create HTTP sites that automatically adjust for the client device using server side scripting than it is to create a separate WAP enabled site.
If SMS was less expensive than email, then I would prefer to use that. But it isn't!

[marlof]

I agree with Andy. We've already got a fully functional messaging protocol on the internet... it's called email. And we've already got a fully functional content browsing and delivery method... it's called the world wide web.
Why do I need email and SMS? Both deliver text based messages. Why do I need WAP and HTTP/WWW? Both allow me to access information. It just happens that WAP doesn't allow complex UI designs traditionally aimed at desktop browsers. It's easier for developers to create HTTP sites that automatically adjust for the client device using server side scripting than it is to create a separate WAP enabled site.
If SMS was less expensive than email, then I would prefer to use that. But it isn't!

Well said. I don't understand why everybody is inventing new standards (WAP, SMIL etc.) where all they would need to do is implement better ways to give a good viewing of the same content on different devices. People should learn, that content (both webpages and email) is viewed on different kinds of devices, and auto swtiching to the best view for the specific device should be a high priority for any developer right now.

SMS comes from the days when you sent text messages through phones that could not connect to the internet. It had his day and use then, but those days are over with the recent bunch of phones. In my POV, SMS will die a slow death from here. And will the reanimation by the means of MMS be successful? Lord knows. The providers are powerful, as they're not only the ones offering the networks, but also buy the hardware from the vendors. So you gotta please the providers. :)

[Andy Sjostrom]

Well said, Adamz! 8)

[adamz]

FURTHERMORE....
Why do we still use numeric digits for telephony communications with people/places that have NAMES!? :)
Why can't I have one type of identification that anyone can use to communicate with me... regardless of wether it's voice communications, text based messaging, instant messaging and presence, or audio &amp; visual communications?
On my cell phone, people can contact me through an SMS address, a telephone number, an email address, and a couple different instant messaging IDs. Does it make sense to have all of these identification addresses for communications? The correct answer is no. :) I should have one identification method, and then a variety of communications options (voice, text, video, etc.)

I may have a car, motorcycle, and bicycle as different devices/methods for transportation... but I never use more than one at a time. And they all function perfectly on THE ROAD!
Why don't all communications devices/methods function on a standard "road"?
I don't care why they don't... they should!

[Jason Dunn]

The only thing that doesn't support is WMA.... but that's proprietry - the standards for media are MP3 and RA 8)

I don't want to confuse the issue by using facts or anything :wink: but your statement is entirely incorrect.

Is MP3 a proprietary standard? Yes. It was created by a company and is owned by a company. Everyone who wants to use MP3 needs to pay a licensing fee.

"As for practically any important technology (and particularly for publicly established standards), you should know that patent rights for mp3 exist. Both Fraunhofer IIS-A and Thomson multimedia have done important work to develop mp3 audio compression (before and after it became part of the ISO/IEC MPEG standards). This work has resulted in many inventions and several patents, covering the mp3 standard. Although others may also hold patents, Fraunhofer IIS-A and Thomson multimedia have an important portfolio of patents related to mp3."
http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html

RealAudio? Ditto - that was created by Real Networks and is owned by them. No "open standard" there.

Windows Media Audio? Same thing. It's no better or worse in this way than MP3 or Real. If anything, Nokia is doing their customers a disservice by not supporting it - the WMA psychoacoustic model is far superior to MP3 at low bitrates. And who the heck encodes music in RealAudio format? Not anyone I know...

There is truly no non-proprietary compressed audio "standard" out there, except perhaps OGG Vorbis, but it doesn't have enough industry support right now to be a "big" player.

[Jason Dunn]

The Internet is the medium for the transfer, not the data itself.

I disagree. :D When people talk about "The Internet", they are not referring to Gopher, FTP, etc. They're really talking about the Web, which is a thriving ecosystem of content, data, connections, etc. It's wild, it's scary, but it represents the most data the human race has ever compiled in one medium before. Andy's point is that the carriers want to keep their phones away from that information and offer "lite" versions of everything.

Give me the Web or give me death! :twisted:

[Rob Alexander]

Just give me a tiny, fast 2.5 or 3G bluetooth phone and skip all this PDA nonsense. If I want to browse the web, send an email or whatever, the phone needs to be nothing more than a modem for my bluetooth Pocket PC or notebook.

[werty]

I don't like WAP because everything costs.
In WEB everything is free.

And there are lots of Web pages which are optimized to small devices.

[werty]

Just give me a tiny, fast 2.5 or 3G bluetooth phone and skip all this PDA nonsense. If I want to browse the web, send an email or whatever, the phone needs to be nothing more than a modem for my bluetooth Pocket PC or notebook.

I agree.

Phone is phone and PDA is PDA.

[mikeschmidt]

oh, I forgot mentioning WHY carriers don't want SMS messages to come across the Internet. An SMS message costs 10-500 times as much to send as an iSMS message. Take away that revenue from any carrier, and we'll end up with some pretty sad "Mobile Internet"-people.

If you use SMS over GPRS, you only pay for the amount of data sent.

/ mike

[mikeschmidt]

I don't like WAP because everything costs.
In WEB everything is free.

And there are lots of Web pages which are optimized to small devices.

Connect your PDA to the Internet, open Pocket IE and type wap.yahoo.com. There is no cost to this site. I use it through my WLAN.

/ mike

[mikeschmidt]

The Internet is the medium for the transfer, not the data itself.

I disagree. :D When people talk about "The Internet", they are not referring to Gopher, FTP, etc. They're really talking about the Web, which is a thriving ecosystem of content, data, connections, etc.

Over half the content I download is over FTP even if it is done through a link in the browser. I have to say none of this matters though. In the future it will be SOAP (XML over HTTP) and who knows what it will be after that. The key is that the devices are connected (The Internet) and that the content is suitable for the device you are using. If I go to a WAP site, I know it will be formated for my phone/PDA.

/ mike

[Arne Hess]

WAP gives you PUSH technology? Are you saying it's a connection oriented protocol? Or does it work more like SMS where each data transfer is independant?

---
Bwana Jim
It is defined as connectionless as well as connection oriented protocol, depending on the used port (9200 and 9201) but also depends on the WAP browser integration on the mobile device.
Today push is mostly triggered by a SMS message which automatically starts the WAP browser to request a site, but you could also push the whole page right to the device - thorugh GPRS or even SMS or USSD...

[Andy Sjostrom]

Mike! You wrote:
"If you use SMS over GPRS, you only pay for the amount of data sent."

In theory this could be possible. Take a guess if it is implemented...

Take any GPRS phone connected to any carrier today and send an SMS. You will pay by the message, NOT amount data sent.

[Jimmy Dodd]

The Internet is the medium for the transfer, not the data itself.

I disagree. :D When people talk about "The Internet", they are not referring to Gopher, FTP, etc. They're really talking about the Web, which is a thriving ecosystem of content, data, connections, etc. It's wild, it's scary, but it represents the most data the human race has ever compiled in one medium before. Andy's point is that the carriers want to keep their phones away from that information and offer "lite" versions of everything.

Give me the Web or give me death! :twisted:

No! No! No! Shame on you Jason.

The Internet is not the Web. The Web is a subset of the Internet. When people talk about the Internet they are talking about gohper, ftp, email, the web, etc. They may only be discussing one of them at a time, they may even not know what they are talking about, but you do - I know that you do. Just because the majority of people are using a name incorrectly doesn't mean we should on a site like this. I visit Pocket PC Thoughts because I am daily amazed at the level of expertise I find among the participants (moderators and members). I can't let you get away with that statement.

I can agree with the point about carriers not wanting to support every protocol.

I can agree with the fact that the Internet is the biggest resource of data ever made available to man (I'd take issue with your use of the word compiled, though, seeing as how the Internet is so highly distributed, but maybe that's splitting hairs).

I cannot stand by and listen to someone say that the Internet is just the WWW, totally ignoring such important aspects of the Internet as ftp, email, telnet (yes, some of us still have a need for telnet in our daily lives), soap, and a plethora of other protocols that have nothing to do with browsing web pages.

---
Bwana Jim

[Jason Dunn]

I cannot stand by and listen to someone say that the Internet is just the WWW, totally ignoring such important aspects of the Internet as ftp, email, telnet (yes, some of us still have a need for telnet in our daily lives), soap, and a plethora of other protocols that have nothing to do with browsing web pages.

You have some good points. Let me re-state it this way:

FTP, Telnet, Gopher, etc. are methods of getting at data.
The Web IS the data.

I have never learned anything from an FTP site. :-) To me, the Internet is not simply a series of connected bit pipes - it's practically an organic, living creation that no one has control over. But I would agree that the Internet is a sum total of all the various parts, and email is obviously a huge part of that.

[Arne Hess]

You have some good points. Let me re-state it this way:

FTP, Telnet, Gopher, etc. are methods of getting at data.
The Web IS the data.
No Jason, with that argument you seems to be a little bit "bullheaded". Web is simply the UI to get data in a specific layout. To access data - stored in the mega database Internet - you can use several "UIs" (if you guys here let me "reduce" the different technologies/protocols to a kind of User Interface)like Web, FTP, Telnet, Gopher, SMTP, NNTP, WAP, Action Engine, Soap, WebTV, what ever...
When I've started with the Internet in 1992, surfing was accessing the Berkeley server through Telnet. The information doesn't changed with the introduction of Mosaic § but the layout only!

[Jimmy Dodd]

I cannot stand by and listen to someone say that the Internet is just the WWW, totally ignoring such important aspects of the Internet as ftp, email, telnet (yes, some of us still have a need for telnet in our daily lives), soap, and a plethora of other protocols that have nothing to do with browsing web pages.

You have some good points. Let me re-state it this way:

FTP, Telnet, Gopher, etc. are methods of getting at data.
The Web IS the data.

I have never learned anything from an FTP site. :-) To me, the Internet is not simply a series of connected bit pipes - it's practically an organic, living creation that no one has control over. But I would agree that the Internet is a sum total of all the various parts, and email is obviously a huge part of that.

OK, I think we are just arguing semantics at this point. I tend to seperate the data from the delivery vehicle when I think of the Internet as, in my mind, the data exists whether you can get to it or not, or whether you can interpret it or not. You are talking about the Web as in all the data that is accessible via this interconnected web of hardware. If you changed your statement above to:

HTML, FTP, Telnet, Gopher, etc. are methods of getting at data.
The Web IS the data.

then we would be in total agreement.

By the way, I've learned a lot from FTP sites in my eleven years of software engineering, so there! :wink: