The price customers pay for software and the level of usability they get with that software is inversely proportional. As long as it solves a big business problem or two, it doesn't matter how easy it is to actually use the stuff.
If you haven't seen Robert Tracinski's controversial piece about the New Orleans disaster, check it out. Whether or not you agree with his position, it's atypical, intelligent commentary on the matter.
"Selling web-based software through ISPs is like selling sushi through vending machines"
- Paul Graham, in Hackers and Painters, Big Ideas From the Computer Age.
He makes a good case for owning the hardware as well as the software. From a startup perspective, I can see how it would be tempting to do otherwise and consider outsourcing this.
OReilly recently reports that JBuilder is open-sourcing their IDE. Is this more proof of IDE commoditization?
It makes me wonder; does open-sourcing force commodization? You might argue this as a tactic used by second or third place competitors to grab market share, forcing the commoditization process. It's hard to argue that this can't at least be partially successful.
"One of the most valuable things my father taught me is an old Yorkshire saying: where there's muck, there's brass. Meaning that unpleasant work pays."
- Paul Graham, Why Smart People Have Bad Ideas
A few other useful programming career-oriented links:
Dr. Tony Evans once said, "When it comes to taking a stand, too many of us have our feet planted firmly in mid-air."
He meant it in the context of knowing your faith and standing by it when, maybe even especially when, it's not popular. So true. It reminds me of my beloved U.S. Marine Corps motto: "Semper Fidelis," which means always faithful. But that was another time and place...
It's worth considering that standing firm applies to many things, not excluding software. So how are we supposed to do this, exactly?
Simple economics apply to any software strategy and should not be ignored. This is equally true with respect to open-source software. Using it is often a no-brainer. Building on top of it requires more deliberation but is still a fairly straightforward decision. The harder question to answer is "Why might I contribute my software to open-source as a part of my business strategy?"
Tim's perception of technology patterns is truly remarkable. Here's a distilled list of operational principles he offers for gaining competitive advantage:
Tim started the presentation by quoting Jeff Hawkins, the author of On Intelligence saying "All the brain knows are patterns." It's patterns like these here that will determine the very success or failure of today's technology companies. If you can think of others or have comments, please add them here or ask Tim.
Be warned, The Pampered Chef takes your dough. But don't worry, he'll bake it like no one's business. Over the years, MLMs have left a bitter taste in my mouth. I can't count the friends and family members to have pushed one thing or another, with the best of intentions, only to leave me questioning the very fabric of our relationship. Not so with The Pampered Chef.
If you live in or near suburbia a new wave of multi-level marketing has probably swept your area. If not, it's coming to a 'neighbor near you.' Nearly everyone I know has either been to or has hosted a Pampered Chef party. My wife loves this stuff. From what I know, I love it too.
By now, at least one quarter of our cookware is from The Pampered Chef. Their stone-wear cooking pans are famous and bake like no metal pan can (except their so **mn heavy). No lie, I've never fried another strip of bacon after baking it in one of these dandy pans.
I've been approached and heard probably every shpiel under the sun. My wife and I agree (married folks know the weight of that statement); The Pampered Chef is the one multi-level marketing (MLM) company that doesn't make our stomach turn. Why is this? Here's a quick-and-dirty on their model:
So, forget Amway (renamed "Quixtar"). While Amway and others like them hook people on the idea that it's a secret path to early retirement, The Pampered Chef promises only good food, great stuff to cook it with, and satisfied customers. My wife may never sell their stuff but we'll keep on buying it. And as long as she needs a thing or two in the kitchen, I'm sure she'll keep hosting these events.
To the US Senate and House - we are listening. That is, to the upcoming debates over one of the most basic rights of US citizenship: property ownership. As it relates to privatizing social security, like any other pretax savings account, "what I earn is mine" is so fundamental to our way of life, that it cuts easily across party lines. A friend of mine highlighted this as the essence of the social security issue today at work. Here's why he's right.
The antithesis, "what you earn is mine," suggests either a - that you are an evil thug or b - you honestly believe I cannot best serve my own interests. While occasionally I might screw things up, from a policy standpoint, it is profoundly arrogant to assume your prescription for use of my property is preferrable. Even if sincerely believed, history has shown this to be false. Well-intentioned governments have shown themselves over and over to be one of the most inefficient (often corrupt) distributers of other people's money. Let's not talk about the disastrous consenquences this has to the fundamental incentive to improve one's lot in life. Let people do with their own property what they best see fit.
The what-you-earn-is-mine, or at least "mine first", mentality doesn't work well and will always end up in devastation dispensed by Smith's invisible hand. Effectively, this is our current social security policy. If you're still under the influence of economic igornance, try educating yourself with "Defining an Ownership Society" by David Boaz.
So, I'm in. Let me keep what is mine and keep my retirement security money in my own retirement account. It is, afterall, my property to begin with. Continuing along the what-you-earn-is-mine path will just continue to boil the socially secure frog (more on boiled frogs here).
