[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Len,
Len said:
See XML and read the frikkin' names on the editor
slots and the contributor's list. Now look at the list of every application
Didier replies:
Its obvious Len that most of the recent XML recommendations are controlled
mostly by big guys. The names on the specs say it all. Its also becoming
more and more clear everyday that XML won't be the technology that will
change any equilibrium and most probably it will simply reinforce the actual
one.
Speaking of Nash equilibrium, there is actually one market where the actual
PC dominant species are not dominant: the cell phone. Resolve the display
problem and you may have the greatest treat the PC industry has known up to
date. However, cell phones are today like toys for serious developers, like
PC were for mainframe developers a couple of years ago. In 1979, for most
observer, nothing could replace serious tools like mainframes, today, with a
similar frame of mind, nothing can displace the PCs as serious tool. Cell
phones are still toys. Yea, like my Apple II in 1979 with only 16K RAM, 40
characters wide displayed on my TV set and a toy language named Basic. I
heard that one guy became incredibly rich with that very language :-) That
guy was doing software for toys at the time.... Who's working on toys today?
Cheers
Didier
-------------------------------------------------------------
Didier PH Martin http://didier-martin.com
OpenJade Project http://dsssl.netfolder.com
Coming soon.... http://xml.netfolder.com
Coming soon.... http://blog.didier-martin.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
Sent: 14 juillet, 2003 14:45
To: 'Didier PH Martin'; 'David Megginson'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] re: Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT]
Tim Bray on Slashdot)
True only if the content type and its handler are core to the
framework and then you must afford the costs of development
and deployment in the context of competitors. If you take
on a better heeled group with an equally effective strategy,
you lose. The law of diminishing returns takes over. You
can't win in a Nash equilibrium unless you can change the
rules. Guess what? Smart Money Matters. Xerox could build
the toy but they weren't smart enough to spend the money to
develop a market for it.
Nature and economics are cruel. If you want to toss around
ecological metaphors, master the realities they are describing.
In natural ecosystems or managed ecosystems, the direction
of evolution has to account for the energy budget of the
system. A big company cannot infinitely expand the reach
of its operations across diverse niches. Jack Welch and
our CEO proved the success of the "be #1 or #2 or
get out of that business" method. After divesting ourselves
of hardware, core technology research (anyone really want
a new object-oriented compiler?), and other frills and
concentrating on business areas where we are observably
a leader, our stock went from $4.50 a share to the current
$23.26 a share in a market zeitgeist that sucks. We quit
building toys. There is NO money in core technology; only
costs. There are lawsuits and IP is profitable. Costly.
***Successful ecological groups cooperate to manage those costs.***
Smarts count. Self-awareness counts. A dumb bully eventually
succumbs to the numbers. Unless one is dumb enough to take
them on mano-a-mano as Netscape did, it is easy to be where
the bully is not. Just be sure it is a bully and not
another hardminded business exec playing as you will when
you can.
Y'all are playing the 'big booger down the block' game
and it is an opportunity for failing downwardly mobile business
types to hang out with other failures. See the John Birch Society.
Every attempt I've seen by the denizens of this and other lists
to take Microsoft or IBM or Sun or Oracle's head has only increased
their domination over their markets. Figure out why and if your
answer is that it is because they are big bullies, well so what?
They still need an ecology with members to dominate. Where
do they get them. They get them from the standards by cooperating
with their customers to manage the risks of using the standards.
WHO made it possible? See XML and read the frikkin' names on the editor
slots and the contributor's list. Now look at the list of every application
language being developed with more than 10 people in the working group.
You want to grow without interference? Be where they ain't and don't
make too much noise about it until you get your patents.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@netfolder.com]
May I add that if, in addition, you make some substantial profits and if the
product's demand is revealed as a "high growth niche" and "benefits from a
substantial potential market" then you can be sure that the landlord will
try to satisfy his gargantuan appetite and will, off course, harvest the
same field as you. Any serf who succeed is a potential revolution and
landlords cannot tolerate a revolution, it's a matter of survival.
"The people have no more bread to eat" said the minister, "they only have to
eat cakes" replied the queen (Marie Antoinette queen of Louis XVI). Guess
what the sharecroppers would replied to the same question :-)
I agree with you David, when you discover rich fields, better plan short
term because, sooner or later the sharecroppers will see opportunities.
That, until the ecosystem balance is changed. The previous order was around
mainframes, now its around PCs. What can change that?
"I like your machine but its still a toy" (An IBM guy told me when he saw my
Xerox Star a couple years ago). What is a toy today may be the next center
of the ecosystem.
We have just to ask ourselves, what do we see today as toys? As not powerful
enough, etc... The answer may gives us a clue from where the revolution will
come.
|
