My friend, C, emailed me this morning to let me know he was rudely awakened at 6 AM by his BlackBerry, which had received some sort of SPAM or other...  In the same message, C also let me know that Google had just launched its new "App Engine", open to the public (well, about 10,000 of them, anyway, since this is a "Preview" release) - pointing me to Matt Cutts blog (posted yesterday) on the subject.

According to the official Google Blog, the Google App Engine opens up to developers the "same building blocks" that Google itself uses.  Items built using the Google App Engine are hosted on Google servers, for free, and receive 500 MB of storage utilizing the Google File System and Bigtable data storage system and 10 GB of daily bandwidth.

This rung a bell, reminding me of SalesForce.com's entrance into providing Software as a Service (SaaS) with their AppExchange and SDK for developing SFDC-integrated and hosted solutions.  A little bit of Internet sleuthing uncovered a blog entry on Tech Crunch, also dated yesterday, that hints at "Deep Integration" between SFDC and Google.  According to the blog post, SFDC is going to begin reselling Google Apps, such as Google Docs, which will be "tightly integrated" into SalesForce, and is purported to make an announcement next week to the same effect.

Interesting timing... In light of the Google App Engine announcement, WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?  The Tech Crunch article goes on to offer the tantalizing speculation that Marc Benioff, SalesForce CEO, might be considering selling to Google, but I'd think a merging of forces might be more in-line with these recent announcements.  If SFDC is going to resell Google Apps which are going to seamlessly integrate with it's own SaaS platform, it makes a blogger wonder if SFDC isn't going to end up being powered by the Google App Engine itself.  Imagine the kind of powerhouse that would be...  People integrating SFDC inside of the hosted Google App Enginge, people integrating Google Apps in SFDC, strange hybrids between Google and SFDC, monstrous cross-breads, ridiculous amounts of customer data flowing back and forth...

Is Google in it to gain access to the customer data?  That "deep integration" certainly is a way to expose Google Apps to the corporate (paying) sphere...

Are Google and SalesForce in it for platform dominance?  A combined Google/SFDC platform would sure blow the metaphorical socks off of the Windows Live/Office Live platform...

And aren't there any other players out there?  What happened to that offer for Oracle to buy up SFDC?  Where's Yahoo! when you need them? (Oh, right, hoping to fend off Microsoft's takeover bid...)  And Apple Computers (forget about them - they gave up the good fight a long time ago)?

It's beginning to look more and more like a two-player world after all - two corporate titans gobbling up everything else in sight.  Get ready for another match up of corporate titans, ten rounds of Microsoft versus Google, Steve Ballmer versus the tag-team of Larry Page and Sergey Brin.  I don't know who to root for on this one...  Linus Torvalds, where are you when we need you the most?

Perhaps in response to the online backlash from the developer community about IE8's proposed method of version targeting, or, as Microsoft's own press release hints at, fear of more potential legal trouble in the EU, the guys behind Internet Explorer announced yesterday that, after thinking long and hard about their previous position on the matter, IE8's wholly embraced (then widely criticized and, ultimately, reluctantly accepted) version targeting system was going to adhere to standards mode by default.

Whatever the impetus for this about-face is, the only thing that matters is that Microsoft has finally started making good decisions about web standards support.

Instead of continuing to put the onus on developers to submit to IE's quirks, Microsoft has finally woken up to the fact that the standards are here to stay and that the only way for the web to progress is to stop pandering to incompetence. That may seem a little harsh, but it's the truth. The web has grown by leaps and bounds over an incredibly short period of time, and the innovations we've come to expect from the web can only continue if EVERYBODY works towards the same goal- an open, accessible web.

I can completely understand Microsoft's desire to support older sites. Given the size of their userbase and the number of legacy intranets that depend on IE6 quirks, it's impossible (and unacceptable) to expect them to completely drop support for those customers. On the other hand, it is equally unacceptable that standards-aware developers be forced to use outdated technologies and compromise what's possible simply for the sake of those legacy applications.

With the news that IE8 will now, thankfully, take the logical route of rendering in IE8 Standards mode by default, the web community as a whole can only benefit from it's release. The web will, hopefully, no longer be restricted by Microsoft's (again, understandable but incorrectly handled) coddling of legacy users. Those users now have two options: set their servers to trigger the appropriate rendering engine in IE8, or get their code compliant. The latter is obviously preferable and will hopefully see some significant play, but in reality, probably won't. Those developers that have grown used to being pandered to by Redmond will probably just choose the first option (the quickest and cheapest, so I can't really fault them). But, hey, that's OK. They don't need to update if they don't want to, as long as the rest of us no longer need to worry about Microsoft "favoring" incorrect websites.

So thank you, Microsoft, for stepping up and putting some support behind your (let's be honest, less-than-fulfilled) past pledges to support web standards. It is really, truly appreciated.