* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) @ 1997-08-29 0:00 Ell 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Ell @ 1997-08-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jon S Anthony (jsa@alexandria.organon.com) wrote: : In article <34059D8A.3F3B7FA4@brightwood.com> "Brett J. Stonier" <bretts@brightwood.com> writes: : : > Now, how about an example of superior technology that won out? Take the : > Japanese car manufacturers of the 80s. Did they attack the U.S. car : > industry? I'm not an expert on this, but I don't think they did. They : > made superior cars and sold them at a reasonable cost. And they made a : > huge dent in the U.S. car industry, knocking them off their throne of : > dominance. So, it seems to be possible to take the high road and still : > win out. : This is the _only_ way to win out in the end. It may well be that : this won't be sufficient, but anything else is a sure-fire elixer for : absolute failure for the reasons you cite. No it isn't. You can win with an inferior product due to other factors. The overwhelming evidence of which some refuse to accept. : In this particular case : you site, I happen to know that indeed there were no such attacks. I can remember the Japanese automakers hitting the US ones hard in the '70's and '80's on quality, and mileage. I don't know how much this helped them, but they did it. : The main reason why this might not be enough is two fold: : : 1) there needs to be "enough of a win" Again, an inferior product can "win" due to factors other than the those inherent in the products being compared. : 2) the _customer_ needs to twig that there is such a win. Often for the _customer_ to "twig" things, the customer's eyes and ears need to be opened. This the Japanese automakers did freely. : By 2) I don't mean the _manufacturer_ (coder, whatever), but the "end : user". That is what I mean also. Elliott -- "The domain object model is the foundation of OOD." "We should seek out proven optimal practices and use them." See SW Modeller vs SW Pragmatist Central: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-08-29 0:00 The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Ell @ 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Jay Martin ` (5 more replies) 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Brett J. Stonier 2 siblings, 6 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ell said <<No it isn't. You can win with an inferior product due to other factors. The overwhelming evidence of which some refuse to accept.>> No you can't win with an inferior product, winning or success with products is how superiority is measured. The trouble is that technical people tend to think that wizz-bang technical features are what is important. No doubt the Sony guys working on Beta really thought that image quality was the most important factor -- it was of course NOT true, and the longer playing time of VHS was what consumers wanted. Technical people are always sitting around grumbling that consumers don t make the "right" choice, but usually such grumbling is just an expression of incompetence in their ability to figure out what is important. There are many reasons people buy product A over product B. They prefer a large company (which tends to get reflected by advertising clout), they like pretty packaging, they like being sure it will still be around a while from now, they don't want to feel they are experimenting etc etc etc. The fact that some technie thinks that super feature X is what is important is pretty irrelevant. I saw an interview with one of the guys from the MIT Media lab a few years ago, saying that he thought that HDTV was completely mis-directed. His question: "Ask someone on the street what is wrong with TV, they will not say 'lack of definition'". I always remember this, because I thought it was an excellent lesson in not focussing on technical excellence. This certainly applies in the field of computer programming languages. The mere fact that language X is superior to language Y is certainly not enough. The issues of continued support are critical. And indeed the effort in Ada 95 to concentrate on providing effective interfacing to other languages, something almost completely missing in most other languages, reflects the understanding that being able to interface to existing software components written in other languages is crucial. Often as CEO of ACT, I find that my most important task is to convince customers not that Ada is superior, they know that, but rather that they can choose Ada and be sure that support for Ada will be around in the future. Indeed our entire business plan at ACT is aimed at ensuring that this is the case. We concentrate entirely on Ada, and we intend to maintain a small low-overhead operation, allying ourselves with various tool producing companies, and working on making GNAT easy to deal with for the tool manufacturers. We believe that this is a convincing strategy for ensuring that the Ada technology, superior from a narrow language point of view, is also superior in other terms that may in the long run be equally important. Actually the entire free software approach is valuable here. We don't make our money by charging an arm and a leg up front, instead we are building are business by gathering customers who are interested in long term maintenance. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Jay Martin 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Jay Martin @ 1997-08-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > Ell said > > <<No it isn't. You can win with an inferior product due to other factors. > The overwhelming evidence of which some refuse to accept.>> > > No you can't win with an inferior product, winning or success with products > is how superiority is measured. > > The trouble is that technical people tend to think that wizz-bang technical > features are what is important. No doubt the Sony guys working on Beta > really thought that image quality was the most important factor -- it was > of course NOT true, and the longer playing time of VHS was what consumers > wanted. > > Technical people are always sitting around grumbling that consumers don > t make the "right" choice, but usually such grumbling is just an expression > of incompetence in their ability to figure out what is important. > > There are many reasons people buy product A over product B. They prefer > a large company (which tends to get reflected by advertising clout), they > like pretty packaging, they like being sure it will still be around a while > from now, they don't want to feel they are experimenting etc etc etc. The > fact that some technie thinks that super feature X is what is important > is pretty irrelevant. I wish I had such "faith" in the rationality of human beings. Of course when you hear: "We don't need no stinkin language designed by some military bureaucracy".... :-) Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Jay Martin @ 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Joachim Durchholz @ 1997-08-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > Ell said > > <<No it isn't. You can win with an inferior product due to other > factors. > The overwhelming evidence of which some refuse to accept.>> > > No you can't win with an inferior product, winning or success with > products > is how superiority is measured. > > The trouble is that technical people tend to think that wizz-bang > technical > features are what is important. Still there are cases where an inferior product wins. 1) When what the consumer perceives as superior is actually inferior, but the consumer doesn't notice before buying it. (Instability and configuration hassles of Windows 3.x vs. Macintosh) 2) When what the consumer perceives as inferior never hits the market because the market entry costs are too high, so the superior product can never prove its quality. (MS-DOS vs. Eumel) 3) When a product is superior for a large partial market but inferior for many niches, but the niche markets are too small to support a separate development effort. 4) Customers don't know about better alternatives because the alternatives are restriced to niches. (Windows NT vs. QNX) Classical market theories don't work too well in practice, and they work even less than that for software, for two reasons: 1) Compared to other products, software production costs have an unusual structure: Market entry (creating the software to be sold) is exceedingly high. Production cost (copying the software for distribution) is near zero. Distribution and marketing costs seem to be about normal. The usual market theories assume products where the production cost is relevant (to the least). 2) Software products are highly interdependent (or can easily be made so). A market leader can improve his position by making his software incompatible with products from other vendors, locking the customers into his software zoo. (IBM did and does this, Microsoft started this no long ago.) > I saw an interview with one of the guys from the MIT Media lab a few > years > ago, saying that he thought that HDTV was completely mis-directed. His > question: "Ask someone on the street what is wrong with TV, they will > not > say 'lack of definition'". I always remember this, because I thought > it > was an excellent lesson in not focussing on technical excellence. Hmm... HDTV is what we'll get here in Europe. I remember there was some conflict between European and US industries about which standard to use. Don't tell me it has anything to do with the customers' desires - it's more a question which company with what invention has its main sales areas where. Regards, Joachim -- Please don't send unsolicited ads. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Jay Martin 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz @ 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Jay Martin 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Paul Johnson ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread From: Patrick Doyle @ 1997-08-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.872872744@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: >Ell said > ><<No it isn't. You can win with an inferior product due to other factors. >The overwhelming evidence of which some refuse to accept.>> > >No you can't win with an inferior product, winning or success with products >is how superiority is measured. I disagree. Superiority is subjective; success is due to marketing. If you don't think this is the case, then you have more faith in the average consumer's IQ then I do. -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle @ 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Jay Martin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Jay Martin @ 1997-08-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Patrick Doyle wrote: > > In article <dewar.872872744@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: > >Ell said > > > ><<No it isn't. You can win with an inferior product due to other factors. > >The overwhelming evidence of which some refuse to accept.>> > > > >No you can't win with an inferior product, winning or success with products > >is how superiority is measured. > > I disagree. Superiority is subjective; success is due to marketing. > > If you don't think this is the case, then you have more faith in the > average consumer's IQ then I do. Fool! You are wrong by Robert Dewars definition! "A winning or successful product is "superior". Proof by contradiction: Suppose you have "inferior" product that is "successful". But by the above axiom, the product must be "superior" and not "inferior" (contradition). QED. Jay ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle @ 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Paul Johnson 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Darren New 1997-09-02 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923 1997-09-15 0:00 ` The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Tim Ottinger 5 siblings, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Paul Johnson @ 1997-09-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.872872744@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu says... >No you can't win with an inferior product, winning or success with products >is how superiority is measured. Careful: you are getting very close to defining "superiority" by success in the market place, and then arguing that the consumers always make the right choice because they always choose superior products. I think it is quite reasonable to assert that "technical" superiority is a real concept, and that it is separate from market success. Conflating these two concepts is dangerous. Technical superiority is not just a matter of having gee-whiz features, it is a matter of doing a better job. Paul. -- Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. | +44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+ Work: <paul.johnson@gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little Home: <Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Paul Johnson @ 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting ` (4 more replies) 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Darren New 1 sibling, 5 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Paul says <<Technical superiority is not just a matter of having gee-whiz features, it is a matter of doing a better job.>> Sure, but who judges what is a better job. The answer is that the only person who can judge is the consumer. The VHS vs Beta example is a good one from this point of view. The tecnical folks at Sony thought that image quality was *the* important technical quality. But they were wrong, and they paid for their mistake. In fact playing time was much more important to the public. Now some techie may say "stupid public, they don't know what is important", but it is such misjudgments by technical people on what is important that leaves quite a trail of business disasters behind. An interesting case is gathering steam now, there is a question of whether the new digital TV transmission capability should be used for HDTV, or more conventional channels. It is beginning to look more and more as though the public and the hence the networks, prefer more conventional channels. Now, no doubt some technical folks will get most upset that as a result the wondrous x by y resolution of HDTV will never see the light of day, but all this shows, if it happens, is that maybe picture quality is not so important as other considerations -- a lesson that tecnical folk *should* have learned from Beta vs VHS, but unfortunately did not (which is why we keep getting this example misquoted as an example where technical superiority did not win out). And, going back to your definition, what does "doing a better job" mean? Who judges this? For example, given two VCR's, one with amazing new features, and the other with solid reliability, which is doing the better job. For me, I would far rather rely on the consumer to make the decision of what features are or are not important and thus constitute the basis of answering this question! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Robert Munck 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Martin Tom Brown ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Matthew S. Whiting @ 1997-09-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > Sure, but who judges what is a better job. The answer is that the only > person who can judge is the consumer. The VHS vs Beta example is a good > one from this point of view. The tecnical folks at Sony thought that > image quality was *the* important technical quality. But they were wrong, > and they paid for their mistake. In fact playing time was much more > important to the public. > > . > . > . > > For me, I would far rather rely on the consumer to make the decision of > what features are or are not important and thus constitute the basis > of answering this question! Robert, FWIW, I agree with you. Unfortunately, by this success metric, Ada is pretty much a failure. Although, one could argue that insufficient time has passed for the customer's decision to truly and completely be felt! :-) Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting @ 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Robert Munck 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Robert Munck @ 1997-09-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 18:50:52 -0700, "Matthew S. Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote: >Robert Dewar wrote: >> ...I would far rather rely on the consumer to make the decision > >FWIW, I agree with you. Unfortunately, by this success metric, Ada is >pretty much a failure. I don't believe that the consumer/customer is really making the decision. Even stipulating that programmers and development managers prefer C/C++/Java over Ada, the parties who depend on the long-term reliability, maintainability, adaptability, and transportability of their products -- upper management, stockholders and investors, real customers, even future programmers and development managers -- are not being given the facts and then making an informed decision. In fact, they don't even know that the issue exists. Bob Munck Mill Creek Systems LC ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Robert Munck @ 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthew says <<FWIW, I agree with you. Unfortunately, by this success metric, Ada is pretty much a failure. Although, one could argue that insufficient time has passed for the customer's decision to truly and completely be felt!>> Not at all, do not equate success with market domination. Rolls Royce does not sit around thinking they are a failure because they have only a sliver of the market. Now sure they would like to sell more cars, but their goal is to increase that sliver, not nudge out GM and Toyota! Success for Ada is measured the same way. Many projects are highly successful using Ada, and it has a significant sliver of users who are convinced that they have found the Rolls Royce of programming language technology for their needs, and hopefully these days not at Rolls Royce prices. To increase the success of Ada, you want to focus on increasing the sliver, don't spend time moaning over the fact that more copies of Visual C++ are sold -- it's not a productive way to spend your time! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting @ 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Martin Tom Brown 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Jeff Kotula ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Martin Tom Brown @ 1997-09-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.873171868@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu "Robert Dewar" writes: > Paul says > > <<Technical superiority is not just a matter of having gee-whiz features, > it is a matter of doing a better job.>> > > Sure, but who judges what is a better job. The answer is that the only > person who can judge is the consumer. The VHS vs Beta example is a good > one from this point of view. The tecnical folks at Sony thought that > image quality was *the* important technical quality. But they were wrong, > and they paid for their mistake. In fact playing time was much more > important to the public. The crucial factor which made VHS the business success was that VHS built up a larger library of prerecorded films available (ie software). Sony vastly underestimated the importance of software sales involved, and VHS courted the film producers so cornering the market. Once you start judging by market success you get into the hairy zone where having a marketting department which sounds plausible enough to get people to buy, and a product cheap enough that it's too much trouble to complain allows you to have a completely useless "success". The early phase of pyramid selling scams fits this model. > Now some techie may say "stupid public, they don't know what is important", > but it is such misjudgments by technical people on what is important that > leaves quite a trail of business disasters behind. Misjudgements by marketting people are *far* worse. I worked on a couple of projects which matched all specifications, but failed because the marketting research was entirely spurious. It only became clear something was desparately wrong when the sales people tried to sell the finished product. > An interesting case is gathering steam now, there is a question of whether > the new digital TV transmission capability should be used for HDTV, or > more conventional channels. It is beginning to look more and more as though > the public and the hence the networks, prefer more conventional channels. > > Now, no doubt some technical folks will get most upset that as a result > the wondrous x by y resolution of HDTV will never see the light of day, You can already watch it on a (slightly) incompatible standard in Japan, and there were test transmissions at least as early as '93 > And, going back to your definition, what does "doing a better job" mean? > Who judges this? The hard line answer is the one which adds most to the bottom line. It doesn't matter how well it works provided people are satisified, or at least content enough not to complain (too much). > For example, given two VCR's, one with amazing new features, and the other > with solid reliability, which is doing the better job. > > For me, I would far rather rely on the consumer to make the decision of > what features are or are not important and thus constitute the basis > of answering this question! Most consumers are actually unable to drive their VCR's :( There are many variables, people are too easily persuaded by adverts. Software in particular is *very* vulnerable to creeping featurism, at the cost of both robustness and useability. ie Bloatware. Another pending technical superiority (and cost) versus marketting power and low build cost fight is with the new 56k modem protocols. The present score is that one sort of works, and the other doesn't. However, it looks like the cheaper one will win. Regards, -- Martin Brown <martin@nezumi.demon.co.uk> __ CIS: 71651,470 Scientific Software Consultancy /^,,)__/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Martin Tom Brown @ 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Jeff Kotula 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Veli-Pekka Nousiainen 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe 4 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Jeff Kotula @ 1997-09-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > Paul says > > <<Technical superiority is not just a matter of having gee-whiz > features, > it is a matter of doing a better job.>> > > Sure, but who judges what is a better job. The answer is that the only > > person who can judge is the consumer. [snip] This is too simplistic. Suppose a company markets and sells a particular software product for X dollars. Supporting that product must, minimally, cost less than X. To have a decent profit margin it has to cost way less than X. My point is that as a tool, programming languages must be effective in 1) creating subjectively "good" products, and 2) creating them so as to be maintainable and supportable at a (objectively) "low" cost. Technical superiority is related to the latter. Now, take a recursive step backward and realize that languages are themselves marketed products and that's where the real confusion comes from... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Jeff Kotula @ 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Veli-Pekka Nousiainen 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe 4 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Veli-Pekka Nousiainen @ 1997-09-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in article <dewar.873171868@merv>... > Paul says > > <<Technical superiority is not just a matter of having gee-whiz features, > it is a matter of doing a better job.>> > > Sure, but who judges what is a better job. The answer is that the only > person who can judge is the consumer. The VHS vs Beta example is a good > one from this point of view. The tecnical folks at Sony thought that > image quality was *the* important technical quality. But they were wrong, > and they paid for their mistake. In fact playing time was much more > important to the public. > > Now some techie may say "stupid public, they don't know what is important", > but it is such misjudgments by technical people on what is important that > leaves quite a trail of business disasters behind. > <SNIPPEDY_SNIP> I can *NOT* choose my programming language as a consumer of those languages. * * * THIS IS NOT A CONSUMER DRIVEN MARKET * * * It is my father (my boss) who is first persuaded by MicroS*it markedroids to believe that you can not possibly choose a niche product no matter how superior it is. And man, I tell U, U'd better take this C++ deal, otherwise other bosses think that you've lost your marbles and do not wanna that, do U ?!! So here I was, stuck with pile of what I have known to be (IMO) a pile of s*it. I LEFT THE COMPANY and now I am working with the Finnish Eiffel Distributor. Call this position heaven first, but I should convince the bosses that: hey man, whut you're using now, is not gonna work. Ask your workers !! They'll tell that Eiffel (or Ada or ...) is better. Listen to them and keep them happy! Otherwise U may lose your best wo/men... Whut have happened to me, I sound like a markedroid... Goodbye real world, welcome virtuality. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Veli-Pekka Nousiainen @ 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe 1997-09-13 0:00 ` Mark S. Hathaway 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Des Kenny 4 siblings, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Richard A. O'Keefe @ 1997-09-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >An interesting case is gathering steam now, there is a question of whether >the new digital TV transmission capability should be used for HDTV, or >more conventional channels. It is beginning to look more and more as though >the public and the hence the networks, prefer more conventional channels. How has public opinion actually been obtained about this? One thing sticks in my craw: surveys in Australia, going back 100 years, have shown that what people _want_ in the media (the newspapers 100 years ago, TV nowadays) is science/medicine/technology, commerce/politics, and sport, IN THAT ORDER, with quite a wide gap between the >50% who want science stories and the <50% who want sport. What we *get* is more and more and more sport. I believe British surveys show much the same order of preference, with much the same total disregard of user preference in what actually gets shown. Ok, the source of my information about such surveys is New Scientist magazine, which may be biassed! But I well remember hearing on New Zealand radio some 20 years ago that more people in New Zealand (then famous as the land of "Rugby, Racing, and Beer") actually _went_ to museums and art galleries than went to sports events. Quite recently, in New Zealand, the "provincial" network was shut down. The plan was to replace it with a channel devoted to ``music'' for teenagers, a group who I believe are already well served in that regard. That was not _audience_ preference, it was _advertiser_ preference. So is it really *the public* who want more conventional channels, or is it *the advertisers*? And if it is the public, how many of them who have been asked for their preference have actually _seen_ HDTV? (For comparison, many of the people who ``choose'' PCs have never actually _seen_ a Macintosh, and certainly have never used one. And many of the people who ``choose'' Windows have never seen NextStep. And so on.) >For me, I would far rather rely on the consumer to make the decision of >what features are or are not important and thus constitute the basis >of answering this question! This is of course the point of usability engineering. But I am not very happy about relying on people to make decisions about features they have never had a chance to evaluate. -- Unsolicited commercial E-mail to this account is prohibited; see section 76E of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 as amended by the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act No 108 of 1989. Maximum penalty: 10 years in gaol. Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe @ 1997-09-13 0:00 ` Mark S. Hathaway 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Des Kenny 1997-10-28 0:00 ` John English 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Des Kenny 1 sibling, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Mark S. Hathaway @ 1997-09-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > In article <5v0kta$jdb$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, > ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >>An interesting case is gathering steam now, there is a question of whether >>the new digital TV transmission capability should be used for HDTV, or >>more conventional channels. It is beginning to look more and more as though >>the public and the hence the networks, prefer more conventional channels. > How has public opinion actually been obtained about this? > > One thing sticks in my craw: surveys in Australia, going back 100 years, > have shown that what people _want_ in the media (the newspapers 100 years > ago, TV nowadays) is science/medicine/technology, commerce/politics, and > sport, IN THAT ORDER, with quite a wide gap between the >50% who want science > stories and the <50% who want sport. What we *get* is more and more and more > sport. I believe British surveys show much the same order of preference, > with much the same total disregard of user preference in what actually gets > shown. >... > So is it really *the public* who want more conventional channels, or > is it *the advertisers*? And if it is the public, how many of them who > have been asked for their preference have actually _seen_ HDTV? (For > comparison, many of the people who ``choose'' PCs have never actually > _seen_ a Macintosh, and certainly have never used one. And many of the > people who ``choose'' Windows have never seen NextStep. And so on.) >> For me, I would far rather rely on the consumer to make the decision >> of what features are or are not important and thus constitute the >> basis of answering this question! > This is of course the point of usability engineering. But I am not very > happy about relying on people to make decisions about features they have > never had a chance to evaluate. It happens all the time. Sometimes the results are good and sometimes a failure. We have no choice but to make decisions about the unknown. Take for example the founding fathers of the United States of America. They fantasized about a new form of government and then argued quite a lot about it...then they created it. Even today we're still critiquing some of their decisions/choices. I agree a lot of decisions are based on incomplete information or they're given survey questions which "lead" them to answer the way the surveyer wants. Polling is an art which seeks to not only get a perfect sample group, but to get the sample group which will then answer the questions the "appropriate" way. The fact the rich people of the world will control such things isn't new. Get used to it. Among the most worrisome things is topics and events which are never discussed (meaning the media and politicians don't talk about them). If something doesn't appear on a poll the you can't give your opinion and the poll won't reflect any thoughts on that topic. If your representative in the government doesn't hear from you (with your cash donation) and doesn't actually have much in common with you (as a human) then he/she isn't likely to be thinking about the same concerns you have. If the system doesn't present you an option then it's not likely you can choose it, can you? Take for example Michael Moore's television show (TV Nation). There were apparently several episodes he wanted to air that were stopped. Some advertisers were offended by his "message" and, in the end, this lead to his whole show disappearing. The "establishment" most often shows it's stodgy side when a "movement" tries to enforce a change which the establishment hadn't offered. The "civil rights" movement was one such "cause". The "ending of the Vietnam War" was another. Could you imagine the angst the powerful people of the "Western world" would feel if a movement to overturn our republics in favor of a true democratic type of governing were to occur. Their power would be threatened and they wouldn't like it. But, these problems won't appear for us to consider. They're not offered-up to us to choose. They don't enter the minds of many people. A movement isn't likely to begin if the idea(s) don't enter the minds of some people. Whatever the movement (civil rights, equal rights, gay rights, environmental protection, nuclear-free society, worker rights, etc.) the establishment didn't propose it and does oppose it. Same as it ever was... Mark S. Hathaway ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-13 0:00 ` Mark S. Hathaway @ 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Des Kenny 1997-10-28 0:00 ` John English 1 sibling, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Des Kenny @ 1997-09-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1997Sep13.115308.12917@hobbit>, hathawa2@marshall.edu (Mark S. Hathaway) wrote: > > Whatever the movement (civil rights, equal rights, gay rights, > environmental protection, nuclear-free society, worker rights, etc.) > the establishment didn't propose it and does oppose it. > > Same as it ever was... > Too true. You might even call this the "Law of Social Inertia", to paraphrase Newton; and it goes back a little while. Here are some more recent, recorded, examples ... 1. "History" tells us that Pythagoras sentenced his young student Hippasus to death by drowning for unforgiveably discovering "irrational" numbers; and thus threatening the demise of his "master's" great work and reputation. -- He was not the first, or the last, "authority" to "eliminate" those with radical -- ideas that might disturb the holy slumber of that great god "Status Quo". 2. The Catholic Church and Gallileo, and Copernicus and so on ... -- Not to mention a few other "Religions" and "Powers" over the centuries -- To be fair it is not always "Religions" as such that have "sinned" -- "Who will rid me of this priest?" -- Henry II giving the barely code signal that sanctioned the murder of Thomas a Becket -- in his own cathedral 3. Many composers and authors were villified until after their death and then were miraculously "discovered" to be "brilliant". 4. A rather more recent film/docudrama on this same subject:- "Manufacturing Consent" Producer: Noam Chomsky, -- One time linguist and developer of the "Chomsky Grammars" Regards Des Kenny Information Systems Consultant Email: dkenny@actrix.gen.nz Phone[Cell]: 64 21 610 220 Phone[Home]: 64 4 476 9499 Fax[Modem]: 64 4 476 9237 PO Box[Snail]: 17356, Wellington, New Zealand ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-13 0:00 ` Mark S. Hathaway 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Des Kenny @ 1997-10-28 0:00 ` John English 1 sibling, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: John English @ 1997-10-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mark S. Hathaway (hathawa2@marshall.edu) wrote: : Could you imagine the angst the powerful people of the "Western world" : would feel if a movement to overturn our republics in favor of a true : democratic type of governing were to occur. Their power would be : threatened and they wouldn't like it. I remember someone saying (of Chile) that the establishment was all in favour of democracy until the wrong party won the election... --------------------------------------------------------------- John English | mailto:je@brighton.ac.uk Senior Lecturer | http://www.comp.it.bton.ac.uk/je Dept. of Computing | fax: (+44) 1273 642405 University of Brighton | --------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe 1997-09-13 0:00 ` Mark S. Hathaway @ 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Des Kenny 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread From: Des Kenny @ 1997-09-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5v0kta$jdb$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) wrote: > dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > One thing sticks in my craw: surveys in Australia, going back 100 years, > have shown that what people _want_ in the media (the newspapers 100 years > ago, TV nowadays) is science/medicine/technology, commerce/politics, and > sport, IN THAT ORDER, with quite a wide gap between the >50% who want science > stories and the <50% who want sport. What we *get* is more and more and more > sport. I believe British surveys show much the same order of preference, > with much the same total disregard of user preference in what actually gets > shown. Just swallow, or you'll get a very sore throat. You could always organise a mass boycott, that would be an interesting empirical test. > Ok, the source of my information about such surveys is New Scientist > magazine, which may be biassed! But I well remember hearing on New > Zealand radio some 20 years ago that more people in New Zealand (then > famous as the land of "Rugby, Racing, and Beer") actually _went_ to > museums and art galleries than went to sports events. "We" exported all the Rugby players, Racing has to compete with the "Pokies" and the Casinos; and the Beer all gets exported too. "They're drinking our beer over there ...", or so the promoters keep telling us, maybe it's a hoax. "We" all drink wine now. Sigh, how the mighty are fallen! -- Marlborough Chardonnay, don't you know, if you can afford it or find it, -- no doubt it will all be exported too. I am working with some people to figure out a way to export our politicians, and are having a great deal of trouble finding a market for this "priceless" commodity. -- Any offers? -- Be in before the price falls too low, or how are you to resell them at a profit? -- No, we are not taking swaps! "We" are currently building yet another national museum in Wellington, the largest museum under construction in the world today. More taxpayers money, nobody asked me, not that they ever do. I recall visiting the Smithsonian in Washington DC (and wishing I had another month), the Los Angeles Natural History Museum, The Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, ... it seems to be a major addiction alright! Maybe "we" just like to look backwards, who knows? Maybe its a national disease? I wonder if we learn anything from it all? Still, its fun. I guess it beats waiting at bus stops and airline terminals. > Quite recently, in New Zealand, the "provincial" network was shut down. > The plan was to replace it with a channel devoted to ``music'' for teenagers, > a group who I believe are already well served in that regard. That was not > _audience_ preference, it was _advertiser_ preference. Yep, there are media formulas to work out the advertising revenue down to the millisecond. It is all very carefully planned and packaged for maximum marketing impact and financial return. There is a debate going on now in parliament about reducing advertising time on "state" TV channels; and we are talking millions of dollars a minute in lost revenue to the "state", the government has gone away to count its pennies. You can always vote with your feet, and "persuade" others to do likewise. Start your own radio station. Access Radio started in Wellington several years ago to give voice to "the people", of all races, cultures, persuasions, religions, hobbies, and other bizzare pastimes. It is run by "amateurs", in the original sense of the word, and there are now Access Radio locations in all the major cities of the country. You can hear almost every language on earth spoken on Access Radio. We don't have Inuit yet, or even any Aboriginee, that I have heard anyway, give it time. "Where there's a will..." IMO the BBC seems to be one of the few electronic media organisations in the world that can consistently produce very high quality big programs year after year. I am not sure why they do it, or how they even get away with it. The real reasons are probably lost in the mists of antiquity -- more museums. > So is it really *the public* who want more conventional channels, or > is it *the advertisers*? And if it is the public, how many of them who > have been asked for their preference have actually _seen_ HDTV? (For > comparison, many of the people who ``choose'' PCs have never actually > _seen_ a Macintosh, and certainly have never used one. And many of the > people who ``choose'' Windows have never seen NextStep. And so on.) More mass media => more mass persuasion, so what's new over the last million years? -- he types on his trusty 8 year old Mac II Ci -- I must upgrade one of these days when Apple finally decides -- which is the right way to the promised land -- maybe I'll even get to take a NextStep, ....? -- I'll probably use NT, various Unixes, Linux, ..., even QNX, ... -- if they are suitable for some project -- To use that old phrase from generations of NZ Racing wisdom -- "It's horses for courses" > > >For me, I would far rather rely on the consumer to make the decision of > >what features are or are not important and thus constitute the basis > >of answering this question! Chacun a son gout; and there are many gouts, vive la difference! > This is of course the point of usability engineering. But I am not very > happy about relying on people to make decisions about features they have > never had a chance to evaluate. People have been doing that forever. Wait for the next leap in human mental evolution, it may change; if you are lucky. > Unsolicited commercial E-mail to this account is prohibited; see section 76E > of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 as amended by the Crimes Legislation > Amendment Act No 108 of 1989. Maximum penalty: 10 years in gaol. > Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci. I am collecting all this "unsolicited email" for the next BIG museum, in New Zealand, it will be called the Cyber Junk Yard. I will bequeath it to future anthropologists, and students of mass psychosis; not to be open until January 1, 3001; it should keep them busy for a little while. Regards Des Kenny Information Systems Consultant Email: dkenny@actrix.gen.nz Phone[Cell]: 64 21 610 220 Fax[Modem]: 64 4 476 9237 PO Box[Snail]: 17356, Wellington, New Zealand ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Des Kenny @ 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Des said <<> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > One thing sticks in my craw: surveys in Australia, going back 100 years, > have shown that what people _want_ in the media (the newspapers 100 years > ago, TV nowadays) is science/medicine/technology, commerce/politics, and > sport, IN THAT ORDER, with quite a wide gap between the >50% who want science > stories and the <50% who want sport. What we *get* is more and more and more > sport. I believe British surveys show much the same order of preference, > with much the same total disregard of user preference in what actually gets > shown.>> Sorry, Robert Dewar did not write that (nothing sticks in his craw, it is not a phrase he would use :-) :-) SO, you need to check attributions here. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Paul Johnson 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Darren New 1 sibling, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Darren New @ 1997-09-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5ue2sn$32g$2@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>, Paul Johnson <paul.johnson@gecm.com> wrote: >I think it is quite reasonable to assert that "technical" superiority is >a real concept, and that it is separate from market success. Conflating >these two concepts is dangerous. Especially when the product being considered is a technical product used by technical people, like a programming language or environment, CM tools, etc. In these cases, I think it's often more of "how fast can I get acceptably effective" as it is "how effective can I get in a given time period". These two can be quite different numbers, especially when "acceptable effectiveness" is low enough and there's previous experience involved. E.g., I can be acceptably effective with K&R C in many ways, even if spending a month learning Ada would make me 20 times as effective at the technical aspects of my job. In many cases, these types of decisions are made by default, or by managers also considering the costs of tools without considering the costs of lack of productivity from cheaper tools. --Darren ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Paul Johnson @ 1997-09-02 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-15 0:00 ` The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Tim Ottinger 5 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread From: W. Wesley Groleau x4923 @ 1997-09-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > No you can't win with an inferior product, winning or success with > products is how superiority is measured. > ..[snip].. > Often as CEO of ACT, I find that my most important task is to convince > customers not that Ada is superior, they know that, but rather that > they can choose Ada and be sure that support Since _all_ your products are Ada tools, it's not surprising that your customers know (or think) that Ada is superior. The quote you were answering, IMHO, referred to the situation where people claim to be interested in the factors in which Ada's quality is proven--yet they continue to cling to the very language that is the worst in those factors. Yes, if a product (Beta, Edsel, whatever) is not what people want, then you can certainly argue that it's not superior. But when a product is _exactly_ what they claim to want, yet they won't buy it, what can you do then? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-02 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923 @ 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-05 0:00 ` happens too often to call it historic W. Wesley Groleau x4923 0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Wes says <<Yes, if a product (Beta, Edsel, whatever) is not what people want, then you can certainly argue that it's not superior. But when a product is _exactly_ what they claim to want, yet they won't buy it, what can you do then?>> listen harder!! This must mean that they have some requirements that they are not articulating clearly. For example, they prefer software written by a big company like Microsoft, or they feel more comfortable using tools that everyone else uses. These are requirements that are just as important to people as simply looking at technical aspects. Why do people pay Bayer large amounts of money for simple chemicals that are available much cheaper from others -- well they feel more comfortable that they are really getting what they want with the Bayer name behind it, and of course Bayer spends large amounts of money convincing people that they feel this way (which does not necessarily mean that it is in an inappropriate attitude). Yes, it's sometimes frustrating that customers seem to make "illogical" decisions. We often see people using Ada technologies that purely in technical terms seem clearly inferior to GNAT by any objective analysis. But there are many reasons for this. Often it is simply a matter of personal relationships, if you have dealt with person X for a long time, and trust them, and they have not let you down in the past, then it's not at all unreasonable to depend more on that trust than on the current technical state of tools. Being in business is all about understanding how all these factors work together and understanding not just the technical needs of customers, but their complete set of requirements, and identifying the cases where you can meet that complete set of requirements. We often end up suggesting people look at some other Ada technology if we feel that, considering all the requirements in this general sense, the customer might be better off with some non-GNAT solution. Of course, being a service and support company, rather than a "heres-the-shrink-wrapped- software-take-it-and-pay-for-it" business, we probably work harder to make sure that we *do* meet all the needs of customers, since we need them to feel they are getting value for their support contracts! Anyway, as I say, I understand the frustration, many projects that could be more successful if written in Ada are not, and those of us who know that spend a lot of time asking ourselves how that can be fixed. Well the answer is that it cannot be fixed generally, and the important thing is to concentrate on an incremental approach, where you make sure that current use of Ada *is* successful, and rather gradually increase the awareness of these successes. I don't see any other approach that will work! Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* happens too often to call it historic 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-05 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923 0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: W. Wesley Groleau x4923 @ 1997-09-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > <<Yes, if a product (Beta, Edsel, whatever) is not what people want, > then you can certainly argue that it's not superior. But when a > product is _exactly_ what they claim to want, yet they won't buy > it, what can you do then?>> > > listen harder!! > This must mean that they have some requirements that they are not > articulating clearly. Taking your advice, I think those unarticulated wants are 1. I want to believe that <tool/product/language> is always the most <reliable/low-cost/other attribute> choice for such things. 2. I do NOT want to see or hear any sort of studies that might threaten that belief. And yes, there are people who would put Ada or Eiffel in the first set of brackets. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 1997-09-02 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923 @ 1997-09-15 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 5 siblings, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Tim Ottinger @ 1997-09-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > No you can't win with an inferior product, winning or success with > products > is how superiority is measured. I think this is a sad statement. Is the ability to generate revenue the only kind of superiority? For a company banking on a product, that's the "most important thing", granted. It leads us to think that only market leaders are of value to us. By this statement, we should never have left the Z80-CPU CP/M machines. One time, the PC was just a new idea. Likewise the Mac. Once there was no UNIX market, so we should have stayed with the mainframes. It leads us to think that there is nothing valuable about products which did not win market share because of poor packaging or marketing. In fact, it seems to "prove" that all research projects are inferior, and therefore invalid, because they're not focused on generating revenue, but on developing technically-superior solutions. But research is very valuable. It leads to new generations of revenue-producing products. Technical superiority and market dominance are clearly not the same thing. They're not even clearly related. No product has ever failed because it was built well. Some have succeeded even though they weren't. Blaming fitness-to-market problems on engineers is often also futile, because most engineers receive their specifications from marketing departments, and do not invent them for themselves. Also, engineers tend not to participate in the success of their products in any way (other than continuing to draw the same paycheck because the company doesn't go under). They often have neither a say in the product direction, nor a stake in the game, nor the opportunity to meet real users. A business seems to me to have to provide a well-balanced compromise between concerns. Inappropriate focus on one concern to the exclusion of the other seems to be a bad idea. But not because the thing you focused on was unimportant. Rather because you should have doneone, without forsaking the other. > [...] > I saw an interview with one of the guys from the MIT Media lab a few > yearsago, saying that he thought that HDTV was completely > mis-directed. His question: "Ask someone on the street what is wrong > with TV, they will not say 'lack of definition'". I always remember > this, because I thought it was an excellent lesson in not focussing on > technical excellence. Also, Stephen Poplawski (the inventor of the first blender-like device) was told that there was no market for his device because it didn't help to capture the soda fountain market. He lost out on millions of potential dollars when Fred Osius developed and marketed a similar device with Fred Waring (the Waring Blendor). Likewise, Elisha Grey was told by the telegraph company that employeed him that there was no need in the world for voice communications. This led to his not patenting the device for many months, and Alexander Bell beating him to the punch. People don't know what they want. They don't know what they need. Until a product has hit the market, it's often impossible to tell if it's really useful and good or not. And useful and good products fail all of the time due to marketing and management. Superiority is no guarantor of success, and neither is inferiority. There are too many variables. After all, a weak, buggy, incomplete, and nearly unusable product I've heard of is (in a marketing sense) superior to a clean, tight, useful, complete, and comfortable product I've never heard of. At least by your definition of marketing success being the definition of success. This seems a balancing act. If superiority is created on full-page, glossy add pages in magazines, we can all give up design, hack away, and quit testing code now. ;-) Tim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-15 0:00 ` The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Tim Ottinger @ 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz 1997-09-18 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread From: Joachim Durchholz @ 1997-09-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Tim Ottinger wrote: > I think this is a sad statement. Is the ability to generate revenue > the > only kind of superiority? Sad or not, this is the way Reality works. Nobody said that evolution will produce the nicest or most aesthetic results. The survivors are the meanest, toughest, and most egoistical traits, moderated only by the fact that cooperation can reap immense benefits. This is so in biology, and this is so in economy. > It leads us to think that there is nothing valuable about products > which > did not win market share because of poor packaging or marketing. Commercial success and inherent value have no intrinsic connection. The only connection that exists is that inherent value can help (and often does help) for commercial success. So doing your work well does help in the success of the products you're working on, but you shouldn't be so megalomaniac to assume that this is the single criterion for the product to succeed. If that were the case, all those marketing guys could quit working right now, just as you proposed to quit testing... the truth is in the middle. All have to do their work, and your success depends on the efforts of the marketing guys as well as their success depends on your effort. (I've heard salesmen complaining about the rubbish they have to force on the customers... I guess they routinely curse all those software developers who produce rotten, difficult to use, buggy, and unfit software they have to sell. And so software engineers and sales people can curse each other until hell freezes over, and nobody thinks about *improving* the situation at his shop.) > In > fact, it seems to "prove" that all research projects are inferior, and > therefore invalid, because they're not focused on generating revenue, > but on developing technically-superior solutions. But research is very > valuable. It leads to new generations of revenue-producing products. Yes. But don't expect companies to do much research other than research resulting in immediate improvements of a product. This company research can even be harmful to public welfare; I remember having read that the tobacco companies did something with the acidity of the smoke of their "light" cigarettes to make them more addictive. I was not surprised to read about this - it's the sort of thing companies do to improve their income. This tendency for egoistical acts is a very common trait in capitalistic companies (and I think in any other organized endeavour). The only countermeasure are laws and a culture that puts guilt on such behaviour. This doesn't totally prevent amoralic behaviour, but it helps. Sorry, life ain't easy or nice... there were no promises when you started life, or? Regards, Joachim -- Please don't send unsolicited ads. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz @ 1997-09-18 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Joachim says <<Commercial success and inherent value have no intrinsic connection. The only connection that exists is that inherent value can help (and often does help) for commercial success.>> So how do we judge inherent value? To me commercial success is a surer judge that some smart engineer who thinks he knows more than everyone else! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-09-15 0:00 ` The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Tim Ottinger 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz @ 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <<Also, Stephen Poplawski (the inventor of the first blender-like device) was told that there was no market for his device because it didn't help to capture the soda fountain market. He lost out on millions of potential dollars when Fred Osius developed and marketed a similar device with Fred Waring (the Waring Blendor). Likewise, Elisha Grey was told by the telegraph company that employeed him that there was no need in the world for voice communications. This led to his not patenting the device for many months, and Alexander Bell beating him to the punch.>> These are all examples that support my point, i.e. products which have won out in the market place. The PC is another example of a product that won out in the market place. I do not understand why you are using examples like this that so clearly support my point as an argument against it -- confusing! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-08-29 0:00 The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Ell 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Brett J. Stonier 2 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-08-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5u5m5b$7q6$1@news2.digex.net> ell@access1.digex.net (Ell) writes: > : > Now, how about an example of superior technology that won out? Take the > : > Japanese car manufacturers of the 80s. Did they attack the U.S. car > : > industry? I'm not an expert on this, but I don't think they did. They > : > made superior cars and sold them at a reasonable cost. And they made a > : > huge dent in the U.S. car industry, knocking them off their throne of > : > dominance. So, it seems to be possible to take the high road and still > : > win out. > > : This is the _only_ way to win out in the end. It may well be that > : this won't be sufficient, but anything else is a sure-fire elixer for > : absolute failure for the reasons you cite. > > No it isn't. You can win with an inferior product due to other factors. > The overwhelming evidence of which some refuse to accept. Ell, I meant (was replying to) the idea of a superior product's possibility of "winning out". We all know that inferior things often win out. /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) 1997-08-29 0:00 The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Ell 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Brett J. Stonier 2 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread From: Brett J. Stonier @ 1997-08-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ell wrote: > No it isn't. You can win with an inferior product due to other > factors. > The overwhelming evidence of which some refuse to accept. Elliot - You continue to miss the point. Nobody is saying that inferior products can't win out over better ones; look at Microsoft, for god's sake! But, when this happens, you can usually find marketing or other mistakes that were made by the better technology providers. This "low road" method of runner-up marketing is a mistake for Eiffel proponents, IMHO, just as it has failed to help other "runner-ups" in other industrys to gain the dominance they seek. At this point, its fueling a self-fulfilling prophecy of obsolesence. Learn from these other guys mistakes, and market Eiffel right! Brett S. http://www.mtjeff.com/~calvin/devhbook ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1997-10-28 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 30+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1997-08-29 0:00 The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Ell 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Jay Martin 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Jay Martin 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Paul Johnson 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Robert Munck 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Martin Tom Brown 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Jeff Kotula 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Veli-Pekka Nousiainen 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe 1997-09-13 0:00 ` Mark S. Hathaway 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Des Kenny 1997-10-28 0:00 ` John English 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Des Kenny 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Darren New 1997-09-02 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-05 0:00 ` happens too often to call it historic W. Wesley Groleau x4923 1997-09-15 0:00 ` The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Tim Ottinger 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz 1997-09-18 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Brett J. Stonier
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox