[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ADTPro beta available
Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article <h5SdnQPsgNY5OSvZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article <TOmdnXjlIf84jivZnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
mdj wrote:
I'm not sure I like this definition either :-) Many platforms have only
a single implementation, yet the definition still stands.
*Successful* ones have multiple implementations.
Does a non-successful platform become a nonplatform just because it
didn't succeed?
Theoretically, it remains a platform--practically, it becomes a non-
platform, in the sense that it is useless as a vehicle for application
deployment. ;-)
Not useless, but perhaps of limited use. However limited use is
better than no use at all.
Right--that's why I used the word "practically".
More seriously, refer to my _de jure_ definition of a platform just
following the quote above in my post. In principle, many "potential"
platforms have been defined that never achieved enough success to
become "practical" platforms for application deployment.
Pragmatically, the _de facto_ argument from success in the marketplace
is the only one that matters.
If so, why ban e.g. hard drug dealing, prostitution and even slavery?
From your "the marketplace is the only one that matters" view, these
activities are great successes which ought to be supported -- right? <g>
We were talking about computing platforms...
But, of course, the "market" *does" support these activities--to the
chagrin of governments and disapproving folks. As with platforms, a
discussion of "good markets" and "bad markets" is really another
discussion.
And what about a successful platform at its early stages, while it still
only have a single implementation - is it then a non-platform?
Any platform with hopes for success will be very careful in its
definition, so that later "backward compatible" implementations can
be easily created to satisfy growing market needs.
That's a pragmatic consideration. I was asking whether it's a platform or
not when there's just one implementation, and you evaded that question.
And I said "potentially", but only time will tell whether it *actually*
becomes a viable platform for applications.
I.e. is the word "platform" defined by commercial success rather than
technical merits?
Practically, it *is* defined by success, since all the unsuccessful
platforms are irrelevant.
....yet an unsuccessful platform is still a platform, right?
Again, *theoretically* yes. But we have different words for
creeks and rivers, though many creeks are potential rivers.
In other words, "platform" is only a relevant term when it supports
a significant number of applications. If it only supports one, or
none, then it is indistinguishable from a non-platform. If it only
supports an economically insignificant number of applications, then
no one cares whether it is/was a platform or not.
Surely you see the practical dimension I am attaching to "platform".
Technical merit is clearly also irrelevant,
Sadly yes -- Micro$oft is a clear proof of that.....
since a huge number of very significant platforms were never designed
to anticipate the degree of market success they have achieved, or have
long since outgrown the foresightedness of their creators.
....yet you call them "platforms"....
Because they once *were* significant platforms. Everything comes and
goes. After their time has passed, they are no longer significant
platforms to anyone but their perservationists. And the unmistakable
sign of this is that there are a wealth of artifacts associated with
their erstwhile success--like lots of applications.
But this leads in the direction of a critique of "platform goodness"
which is certainly a neverending discussion. ;-)
A discussion I didn't intend to launch. However I note that you call
all these "platforms", although with the qualifiers "unsuccessful
platform" or "insignificant platform".
Such is the problem of the process of trying to sharpen a term with
a history of fuzzy use.
I admit that I am proposing my own meaning here, but I also propose
that it is a very useful definition that allows one to discriminate
between practically important alternatives.
I recall in the early 1990s, when the "ACE" alternative PC architecture
was a hot topic (another earlier effort to derail the Microsoft/Intel
juggernaut). I was in Taiwan at a press conference and was asked about
why my company wasn't actively persuing this alternative PC "platform".
I explained, politely as possible, that no such platform yet existed,
and that it would take a decade of phenomenal success in the marketplace
to create a stable of applications that could make any PC-replacement a
reasonable competitive choice for most users. (I did not point to the
Mac, a very well-designed alternative platform, as an example, but it
was one.)
They were making the error of considering an alternative PC platform as
*participating* in the existing PC market, rather than as an attempt to
establish a *new* market starting from square one.
Multiple implementations of a single platform compete head-to-head in
the marketplace on their cost, features, and performance.
Multiple platforms compete on the basis of those factor too, but
primarily on the basis of the cumulative value of all the applications
supported by each respective plaform. That is why the "barrier to
entry" is so high for any new plaform contender that does not provide
"backward compatibility" to inherit the older platform's applications.
Is an unsuccesful human being still a human being? Is an insignificant
human being still a human being? Is a human being which fails badly
in the marketplace still a human being? Is a human being which
committs suicide while only a teenager still a human being? Was the
recently passed-away Syd Barrett (founder and first lead member of the
rock band Pink Floyd who got mad from too much acid and then lived the
last decades of his life in isolation) a human being? I believe
you would answer "yes" to all those questions. Similarly, a platform
which is insignificant, which fails in the marketplace, and which perhaps
even is technically bad, is still a platform.
OK... I simply propose that my operational definition is more useful.
If you want to continue to use the word "platform" to refer to those
which are less relevant to decision making, go for it.
And switching the topic to the more emotionally laden "human beings"
is not helpful, either.
Say what you will about Microsoft, they have been a powerful force
of reality in a marketplace once addicted to fantasy. The message
is simple and Darwinian: do a better job (than we do) giving customers
what they want (a capable, affordable, unified platform), or die.
Nah, you've misunderstood Microsoft's message. Instead it says: "do
a better job than we do in advertising, brainwashing customers to
believe there's no other feasible option than us".....
OK--but any marketing person will tell you that perception, however
achieved or misguided, *is* reality in the marketplace. This is
particularly apparent in the area of politics. ;-)
....at least in the US, where politics is more market-driven than in
perhaps any other country. But in other countries there are other
kinds of politicians. Consider for instance Nelson Mandela, former
president of South Africa. Did he become president because he was the
richest candidate who could afford the biggest campaign? No, he was a
prisoner for decades, accused for terrorism, who stood up for
fundamental human rights, with a stubbornness and preserverance which
few of us could bear - THAT made him a president.
Nelson Mandela is a great man. I love it when perceptions have a high
correlation to reality. ;-)
Put another way, people get what they deserve. If they don't like
it, smarten up the market!
In a way you're right. And this applies to governments too: of they
don't like their government (e.g. because the government won't allow
then to vote); overthrow the government....
Yep, that was my only slightly obscured message. ;-)
-michael
Fast Sudoku solver for Apple II's!
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."