• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• From: "Stan" <StanD@s...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:35:53 -0800
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <0907M2ZNMFBWTA8YTMIC21GC98611.3c95edc5@MChamp>

>>6. I claim that hitting an 80/20 point is a strong predictor of
>>    success (positive and also negative in that technologies that
don't
>>    hit it usually don't succeed), that there are a few less strong
>>    predictors (happy programmers, good early implementations,
technical
>>    elegance), and that military backing is a weakish negative
>>    indicators.

>I had hoped that people would hit on some of these points.  Are there
any
>technologies that DID hit a clear 80/20 point that lost out in the 
>marketplace to more complex competitors (that weren't already
entrenched)?

How does one know when a given technology reaches the 80/20 point other
than by its success in the marketplace? Maybe the 80/20 point is a good
predictor of success, but the whole concept of 80/20 is too slippery for
me to grasp. Could someone tell me how does one design something to hit
the 80/20 point?

StanD.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Re: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XSLT and the 80/20 point (was RE: Tim Bray on"Which Technologies Matter?")
• Next by Date: RE: SV: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Previous by thread: Re: XSLT and the 80/20 point (was RE: Tim Bray on"Which Technologies Matter?")
• Next by thread: Re: RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread