[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com writes:
>It seems to me that there has to be some paradigm shift. A free
>browser paradigm with free content/services isn't sustainable
>indefinitely. Salaries need to be paid to developers and other staff.
>So things *will* change. For example, we might have free browsers with
>fee-for-service content or thicker clients (paid for) perhaps also
>with fee-for-service.
I'm afraid I disagree with the above conclusion, save as a sign that the
computing market eats its customers. I'm definitely NOT inclined to
argue business models, so perhaps it's best to say simply that I have
very little interest in the universe you are proposing and would rather
focus what efforts I can gather on shoring up the universe I already
have and which I much prefer.
>The free-browser, free-content, free-services paradigm is going to die
>... or at least it is going to shrink drastically. It is not a
>sustainable business model. If worthwhile content and services are to
>continue then someone has to pay for something at some point in the
>process. We need to face that reality and think through the
>consequences. What type of client is approriate in that upcoming
>world? Is XHTML 2.0 of value in that scenario or is it an irrelevance
>(as many developers find XHTML 1.0) or little more than an anachronism
>to which parts of the W3C have a sentimental attachment?
At least I now know where you come from, and it's clear that I don't
want to contribute to that discussion.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
