[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ADTPro beta available
Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article <Y9CdndLdO9znNCvZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article <OcGdnUmXsNjKwSjZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
A more useful definition of a platform is any layer of uniformity that
enables a common market in applications.
:-) ...that's the first time I've seen anyone use a marketing definitin
of what a "platform" is. By this definition, the Apple II is no longer
a platform, because there is no longer any market for it.
No, you have to look at it with a time machine. The Apple II *was*
a big market, hence a big platform, and, to those who enjoy nostalgia,
that period is forever frozen in time.
As you say, the Apple *was* a platform.... its market is in the past
and today it has vanished. Is it still a platform today?
Not practically. Today it is a *past* platform, of historical interest.
But from the point of view of *new* applications, the Apple II has
(almost) ceased to be a platform.
Of course it's a very insignificant platform today - but IMO it's
still a platform. It's even a more useful platform today than back in
the 1980's, because today it can be emulated on several other host
platforms -- just like Java!
Being insignificant is not the same as being nonexistent.
Agreed.
And I like your point about the Apple II living on in emulation as
a platform. Quite true (though it will almost certainly never again
support a market).
(Unix, for example, never quite made it to this status, mostly for
competitive reasons.)
There was never just one Unix, true. But that doesn't mean that a
particular Unix platform wasn't a platform.....
Right, it's just that they were all separately much less viable
than they could have been if merged--though that might have meant
that some hardware vendors were winners at the expense of others.
The cost of developing and deploying applications for the "Unix
platform" was hugely increased by the disparity of the many vendors'
platforms, which created considerable "drag" for the whole market.
I know --- I've done some cross-platform Unix development myself,
in plain C, which should run on both Linux, Solaris and HP-UX....
Yes--we (at HP) found that a huge additional cost to developers that
was almost unrecognized in theoretical discussions of "compatibility"
was the need to have multiple testing, training, and support efforts
for each supported flavor of Unix.
Developers certainly figured it out soon enough, though, and pruned
their list of supported systems to the "top 3" or fewer, to maximize
ROI. So if you didn't make the top 3, you were out of the market!
There was a window (no pun intended) of opportunity for a converged
Unix to play a significant role (maybe even dominant?) on the corporate
desktop, but that opportunity was missed. The market growth that would
have enabled $50 Unix applications never happened.
Instead we got $0 Unix applications, thanks to Linux and the
Open Source movement.
I'm tempted to ask, "So how's that working for you?", but the play
on Dr. Phil probably doesn't work outside the US. ;-)
The jury is still out on whether there is a sufficient supply of
altruism to provide all the applications that people want, and are
willing to pay for, free. There certainly aren't enough for me,
but YMMV.
My concern is that much of this effort is a "childrens' crusade" and
will pass like love-ins and free concerts.
If the movement persists and succeeds, then it will have a long-lasting
effect on both platforms and markets. But so far, it is a small ripple
on a large pond, in terms of its economic impact.
Linux is trying to rekindle that flame, but it's so late and so far
down the road that their primary "fuel" is not the excellence of
thier offering, but fear and hatred of Microsoft. Truly a movement
driven by negative energy. ;-) (BTW, this in no way applies to the
high priests of Linux, who are all devoted idealists--only to the
_hoi polloi_ who chant in the streets waving firebrands, or to the
corporate opportunists who see a stick to swing at MS. ;-)
Otoh Linux does also offer an economical advantage compared to M$...
If you look at "total cost of ownership", many companies have come to
different conclusions. Much depends on things that haven't yet
happened...
A revolution may take hold, but, like all revolutions, not without
most of its participants becoming tainted with the same ugliness that
they were revolting against. Never underestimate the power of the
dark side. ;-)
Perhaps the dark side is your father.... ;-)
Ha! ;-)
For all of us, the dark side is our father--and the light side is
our mother. What we do about it is up to us!
Think of the "dark side" as the reptilian brain, and the "light side"
as the frontal cortex. ;-) Both have proven necessary at one time
or another to our survival!
For this to be viable, the platform definition must be sufficiently
"complete" that one does not need to go outside it to write useful
applications, and it must be sufficiently "strong" that a single
testing regime is sufficient for deployment on all implementations
of the platform.
By this definitions, I think there are no platforms. There are always
some holes somewhere...
That's why I said "sufficiently". Avoid the trap of the ideal.
....and introduce subjectiveness, making people disagree....
I see it as practical vs. theoretical, but have it your way.
The conclusion is that there are different opinions on what a "platform"
actually is. Different people have somewhat different semantics here.
Yep--that's what makes it interesting. But try mine out from the point
of view of living your life and making decisions, as opposed to writing
textbooks, and I think you'll find it quite useful--even profitable. ;-)
Even if I consider an insignificant platform a platform, I can still
decide that I ought to settle for significant platforms -- unless I do
it in my spare time, just for enjoyment. Writing software for the ENIAC
could actually be fun, at least for a little while.... and now there
are ENIAC emulators one can execute such programs on.
OK, we have no operational disagreement.
I might compare this to a discussion of what constitutes a "species".
Is every lethal mutation a "potential" species, or do we prune our
language to include only those that successfully reproduce to fill a
niche?
If you prefer to use an adjective prededing "platform" to make this
distinction, go for it.
I have some code to write for an obsolete platform... ;-)
-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."