Bray jumps from the Watson/Sherlock experience to branding everyone who uses proprietary tools as a sharecropper. His argument would be more convincing if he cited more than this single case of a big company pulling the rug out from a little company. (Yes, they exist, but they are few compared with the number of working developers.)
In any case, what Bray is really saying is that if you develop for open source and/or the web, then no one is going to come along with a new product that mimics or competes with yours.
Of course, that's wrong. Competition exists. In fact, a case could be made that opportunities for competition in the open source arena is greater than in the proprietary arena because the cost of entry, development and distribution are much lower. (E.g., see Gnome vs KDE)
Well, I can think of a few cases that seem to apply, if you're interested.
There used to be more than one word processor for MS OSes: WordStar, Ami, Q&A (primarily a DB manager, but a lot of people preferred to included word processor to the other choices of the day), and of course, WordPerfect--which dominated the market until Microsoft decided to take it over. Now (effectively) there's only one: Word.
In the same vein, there used to be a lot of choices in the spreadsheet category: CalcStar, Lotus 123,
>>...unless you occupy a niche too small for the big guys to notice, it's definitely an invitation to trouble in the long run.
The "big guys" in any industry will always move into a market once the "little guys" prove its viability. The trouble with the PC market is that there's only one big guy.
The same thing, however, can occur in the open source world. It's a different kind of market, but there's no reason why a popular and entrenched program can't be scuttled by a newer and better program. I'd
There used to be more than one word processor for MS OSes: WordStar, Ami, Q&A (primarily a DB manager, but a lot of people preferred to included word processor to the other choices of the day), and of course, WordPerfect--which dominated the market until Microsoft decided to take it over. Now (effectively) there's only one: Word.
In the same vein, there used to be a lot of choices in the spreadsheet category: CalcStar, Lotus 123, and Quattro spring to mind, but I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch. There us
I'm not saying "sharecropper" is the greatest analogy in the world; I'm just giving examples of software that fell to competition with Microsoft. What all of these cases have in common is that they increased the value of their target OS by providing users with needed software--effectively subsidizing their own competition. Microsoft can hardly be accused of being nimble, but they didn't need to be since they had their OS cash cow paying the bills while they got their other products right.
In any case, what Bray is really saying is that if you develop for open source and/or the web, then no one is going to come along with a new product that mimics or competes with yours.
I didn't read it this idea. His case is similar to WinZip vs. WinXP zip management. The problem with Watson/Sherlock is that Apple didn't leave space for too much competition. Sherlock comes with the operating system, why would anyone use Watson? Even if it is slightly inferior, it's alreay there. And with the "secret API's"
As long as they open source everything, they obviously won't be able to exploit the closed source "secrets" that they wrote. But, nothing prevents RedHAt, or anyone else, from building a Better Mousetrap and putting your mousetrap out to pasture.
>> Why would they develop their own software if they can use yours...
Because they need something better. The fact that it will be open sourced and free simply makes it stronger competition.
Probably the Linux vendor software will be free software. You can copy/mimic/bundle whatever they come up with. And it's very hard that it won't be free, they probably linked to GPL libraries.
You can copy it, but that's beside the point. Setting myself up as a Linux distributer to rival Red Hat isn't exactly easily done. There may be a theoretical advantage in that I can create and give away Linux+my program where as I can't do that with Windows. But in practice, if Red Hat choose an alternative program
In any case, what Bray is really saying is that if you develop for open source and/or the web, then no one is going to come along with a new product that mimics or competes with yours.
It is truly scary how many people can't read.
What he's really saying is that there is no vendor for the web or open source that can shift the ground out from underneath you, and either absorb your functionality or just destroy it, without you having any recourse. One of the ways a platform vendor can accomplish this is to b
If a vendor absorbs the functionality of your product into its platform, or otherwise starts selling something that usurps your market position, that's competition. The way to compete is to start selling something that people want to buy. Sure, Sherlock might be a freebie clone of Watson, but nothing is stopping Watson from improving or modifying their product in order to attract additional sales.
Microsoft's dubious actions complicate what is already an i
His argument would be more convincing if he cited more than this single case of a big company pulling the rug out from a little company. (Yes, they exist, but they are few compared with the number of working developers.)
It's not a single case, and you know that, so don't degrade his statement by pretending that's what he said.
Big vendors are regularly pulling the rug out from under the little companies. The browser was the first taste of "freedom" that little vendors had access to and they flocked t
I don't particularly agree, but even if I did it seems to me that there is a dynamic that drives the software industry to consolidate in a few large. monolithic corporations. This is the same dynamic that drove the consolidation of the American auto industry in the early 20th century. At one time, hundreds of auto manufacturers existed. But, within a few decades, all but a handful were out of business or had been absorbed by one of the survivors.
The same process is well underway in the software industry
I don't particularly agree, but even if I did it seems to me that there is a dynamic that drives the software industry to consolidate in a few large. monolithic corporations. This is the same dynamic that drove the consolidation of the American auto industry in the early 20th century. At one time, hundreds of auto manufacturers existed. But, within a few decades, all but a handful were out of business or had been absorbed by one of the survivors.
The hundreds of auto manufacturers still exist, you just
Lots of vendors supply parts to auto manufacturers, but there are only a handful of auto manufacturers. Trying to draw parallels between U.S. auto makers and Linux distributions is silly.
How do you know more PC vendors exist today> Got numbers? Even if that is accrate, they're all selling the same thing. The standards that exist in the PC market are entirely cutomer and market driven, which, I believe, supports my contention that customers really dislike competing "standards" that don't appear to offer
Lots of vendors supply parts to auto manufacturers, but there are only a handful of auto manufacturers. Trying to draw parallels between U.S. auto makers and Linux distributions is silly.
Huh? I seem to recall *you* brought up the analogy between auto manufacturers and the software industry. I didn't say anything about Linux in the context of your analogy.
How do you know more PC vendors exist today> Got numbers?
Yes, I do. In 1980 there was one PC vendor if you only count IBM-PC, or perhaps a
Everyone in the PC hardware market is selling the same thing. Sure, you get standards. You also get lack of choice.
I'll agree that PC hardware is commoditized. The downside is that no one can afford to move away from the architecture we all got locked into 20 years ago.
Arguing that standards enforced by Microsoft's hegemony are bad while extolling the standards set by the PC architecture hegemony isn't consistent.
I'll agree that PC hardware is commoditized. The downside is that no one can afford to move away from the architecture we all got locked into 20 years ago.
Tough. You were stating (and I agree) that market driven standards are better than committee driven standards. You don't get to argue one way when it suits you but another way when it doesn't.
Arguing that standards enforced by Microsoft's hegemony are bad while extolling the standards set by the PC architecture hegemony isn't consistent.
No, he's not. What he's saying is that your product will not suddenly stop working or stop being in demand because some single other company you're depending on decides they like someone else better.
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others.
-- Berry Kercheval
Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:5, Interesting)
In any case, what Bray is really saying is that if you develop for open source and/or the web, then no one is going to come along with a new product that mimics or competes with yours.
Of course, that's wrong. Competition exists. In fact, a case could be made that opportunities for competition in the open source arena is greater than in the proprietary arena because the cost of entry, development and distribution are much lower. (E.g., see Gnome vs KDE)
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:3, Interesting)
There used to be more than one word processor for MS OSes: WordStar, Ami, Q&A (primarily a DB manager, but a lot of people preferred to included word processor to the other choices of the day), and of course, WordPerfect--which dominated the market until Microsoft decided to take it over. Now (effectively) there's only one: Word.
In the same vein, there used to be a lot of choices in the spreadsheet category: CalcStar, Lotus 123,
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
The "big guys" in any industry will always move into a market once the "little guys" prove its viability. The trouble with the PC market is that there's only one big guy.
The same thing, however, can occur in the open source world. It's a different kind of market, but there's no reason why a popular and entrenched program can't be scuttled by a newer and better program. I'd
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:0)
In the same vein, there used to be a lot of choices in the spreadsheet category: CalcStar, Lotus 123, and Quattro spring to mind, but I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch. There us
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
Trying to pin th
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:0)
I didn't read it this idea. His case is similar to WinZip vs. WinXP zip management. The problem with Watson/Sherlock is that Apple didn't leave space for too much competition. Sherlock comes with the operating system, why would anyone use Watson? Even if it is slightly inferior, it's alreay there. And with the "secret API's"
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
As long as they open source everything, they obviously won't be able to exploit the closed source "secrets" that they wrote. But, nothing prevents RedHAt, or anyone else, from building a Better Mousetrap and putting your mousetrap out to pasture.
>> Why would they develop their own software if they can use yours...
Because they need something better. The fact that it will be open sourced and free simply makes it stronger competition.
Frankly, the ability to mod
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:1)
Probably the Linux vendor software will be free software. You can copy/mimic/bundle whatever they come up with. And it's very hard that it won't be free, they probably linked to GPL libraries.
You can copy it, but that's beside the point. Setting myself up as a Linux distributer to rival Red Hat isn't exactly easily done. There may be a theoretical advantage in that I can create and give away Linux+my program where as I can't do that with Windows. But in practice, if Red Hat choose an alternative program
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:3, Insightful)
It is truly scary how many people can't read.
What he's really saying is that there is no vendor for the web or open source that can shift the ground out from underneath you, and either absorb your functionality or just destroy it, without you having any recourse. One of the ways a platform vendor can accomplish this is to b
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
If a vendor absorbs the functionality of your product into its platform, or otherwise starts selling something that usurps your market position, that's competition. The way to compete is to start selling something that people want to buy. Sure, Sherlock might be a freebie clone of Watson, but nothing is stopping Watson from improving or modifying their product in order to attract additional sales.
Microsoft's dubious actions complicate what is already an i
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
It's not a single case, and you know that, so don't degrade his statement by pretending that's what he said.
Big vendors are regularly pulling the rug out from under the little companies. The browser was the first taste of "freedom" that little vendors had access to and they flocked t
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
The same process is well underway in the software industry
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
The hundreds of auto manufacturers still exist, you just
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
How do you know more PC vendors exist today> Got numbers? Even if that is accrate, they're all selling the same thing. The standards that exist in the PC market are entirely cutomer and market driven, which, I believe, supports my contention that customers really dislike competing "standards" that don't appear to offer
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
Huh? I seem to recall *you* brought up the analogy between auto manufacturers and the software industry. I didn't say anything about Linux in the context of your analogy.
Yes, I do. In 1980 there was one PC vendor if you only count IBM-PC, or perhaps a
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
I'll agree that PC hardware is commoditized. The downside is that no one can afford to move away from the architecture we all got locked into 20 years ago.
Arguing that standards enforced by Microsoft's hegemony are bad while extolling the standards set by the PC architecture hegemony isn't consistent.
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
Tough. You were stating (and I agree) that market driven standards are better than committee driven standards. You don't get to argue one way when it suits you but another way when it doesn't.
The
Re:Competition Is Unavoidable (Score:2)
No, he's not. What he's saying is that your product will not suddenly stop working or stop being in demand because some single other company you're depending on decides they like someone else better.