MBF and WinFS: a False Dichotomy?

Tim Brookins writes more about MBF and WinFS. This pleases me because I want to like MBF and WinFS. But it concerns me because I'm uncomfortable with the direction they're taking. I should say I like the high-level intent to support building domain-driven designs and flexible databases. But...

Wouldn't it be fantastic to finally let users see their Customers and Orders in the shell?

I think these days they want to see them easily from any device, any location. That would mean the Internet browser rather than the Windows shell. Why the shell? That's outdated. I don't even want to see the shell, period.

ISVs really need one combined platform which merges the best of the WinFS and MBF data persistence stories.

Most ISVs are building world-wide web applications these days, aren't they? They need a simple user interface and a flexible database. In tomorrow's mobile world, a flexible database will not have a single location...

While WinFS synchronization is great for keeping your pictures synced across machines, it really isn't going to be viable to build a multi-user business application. So you need the server-side N-Tier capabilities that MBF provides.

This seems to be a false dichotomy. I've seen too many domain-driven systems become prematurely obsolete from built-in dependencies on specific underlying mechanisms. We need objects that can live a dozen years or more. This is demonstrably *not* the way to do so.

MBF should be an arms distance from WinFS, Indigo, Avalon, SQL Server, etc. I've already stated WinFS should be a more flexible database rather than an elaborate file system.