Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: re: Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] Tim B
 In my part of the world, we don't give a flying fig what a framework vendor thinks of our social strata. We're not mocha latte business partners; we manage risks on behalf of our customers: 1. Tool costs. Short lifecycle cost risks. That is the risk you describe and it is exactly as you say. Because the risk to the developer is short, it is reasonably manageable. 2. Content costs. Long lifecycle cost risks. That is the CALS vertical stack problem of non-standard formats for long lifecycle data. This is harder to manage without scaled cooperation and the risk accrues to our customer. We insist our tool framework vendor help us manage this risk on behalf of our customers. That is what XML attempts to solve but the solution is incomplete given the contextual issues of semantics. That is the problem open source attempts to solve by providing a free implementation. What works better is a well-specified object model. The cost risk here is the process for creating that. We expect a tool framework vendor to manage that risk on behalf of their customers. The solution in today's environment varies by content type. The risks for HTML are minimal. For SVG, XSLT, etc. they are higher. Because of co-dependencies in the pipeline, one picks a framework to get interoperating object models. So, it is for any given pipeline, a mixed set of risks and one attempts to get the right mix (ie, acceptable reliability numbers). The tool vendor must provide us reliable tools to manage these costs at a cost that we can, as you say, amortize out reasonably quickly. That means he has to sell in volume and we have to sell in the correct tier with the correct mix of content. There is nothing uppity about that position. Strictly business. The Hardees CEO got it right: I will pay a little more and wait a little longer for a demonstrably better burger. Surprise: it really is one. Try the Combo #3. <aside>If you use the term 'uppity' where I live, you will get a civil suit filed against you. Welcome to regional cultural risks.</aside> len From: David Megginson [mailto:david@m...] AndrewWatt2000@a... writes: > It seems to me that Tim misses an important point that Microsoft, > and other proprietary vendors **need** what Tim refers to as > sharecroppers. They need sharecroppers in general, but they don't need any sharecropper in particular, especially not the uppity ones who get too much attention. I do think that Tim overstated the case, but not in an obvious way. I wouldn't object to building a software product specifically for a closed-source platform, but I would do so only if I could reasonably hope to amortize the development costs over, say, 18 months or less of sales. Past that point, the risks that Tim describes become more and more significant. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
