Board index » delphi » Re: Wild speculations about the "other" factors

2006-10-24 08:04:33 PM
delphi180
"Bob Dawson" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
-d
 

lurkio writes:
view .NET this way /at/ /all/.
They've submitted /several/ elements of .NET to a standard's body for
approval as an open standard.
They have not prevented anyone from using that standard to create their
own implementation.
They have not created an implementation that differs from the standard (as
they did with the Java VM).
Are they being monopolistic by creating development tools with more (.NET)
features and functionality faster than anyone else? I don't see how they
could be.
If they did not allow others to create a .NET development tool, that
/could/ be monopolistic.
If they did not allow .NET software to run on Windows /unless/ it was
created with Visual Studio, /that/ could be monopolistic.
If they only allowed .NET software to run on Windows (removing the ability
to run Win32 "native" apps), that /might/ be considered monopolistic.
Just my $.02
 

"lurkio" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
-d
 

"Simon Kissel" wrote":
Simon, we are just way too far apart to have a meaningful discussion on this
topic.
Switzerland is a wealthy nation has more to do with their unique banking
laws and the innate characteristics of their citizens, such as an
enterprising nature, educational level, and productivity, than with their
neutrality.
 

only are possible to exist because Switzerland is neutral (not part of the
EU). it is also the reason why lots of international cooperations and
organizations choose Switzerland as their headquarter - especially joint-
ventures between different countries with conflicting law systems
usually choose Switzerland as their headquarters so none of both
"sides" can claim to have a legal advantage over the other.
I take it that probably the phrase "The Switzerland of..." isn't that
common knowledge overseas, but you can trust me that it's
used to refer to the advantage the neutralitiy of a small entity can
have...
Simon
(Who just returned from Switzerland yesterday)
 

"lurkio" writes:
part of the OS.<g>
implementation tool and Microsoft is willing to let others use via VSIP it
in their own products provided it isn't used in a competitive manner. And
IMO that lacks meeting the illegally monopolistic hurdle.
personally, so I am a "do as I say and not as I do" kinda guy. ;-)
 

"IanH" wrote
bobD
 

Jon Robertson writes:
match, not by a long stretch. In fact, AFAICT, it is the C#
language and their definition of the CLI concept that were
submitted - you could build /your own/ framework off of that,
sure, but it would NOT be .NET. All of the value added to
.NET since then has been in the proprietary parts (such as
ASP.NET).
MS embracing the wider non-MS community without them having
to actually do anything to, erm, embrace the wider non-MS
community <g>
All great marketing. It makes (and has successfully made) C#
look like some genuinely new, worthwhile independent contribution
to the wider language landscape as opposed to some artificial
construct MS had to concoct after losing that Java court case
with Sun.
(I quite like C# as a language, BTW, but it really is
syntactically just a blatant rip-off of Java...)
helped concoct themselves, not one created by rivals (Sun)
who threatened their patch. it is their own standard.
because of the resources and talent on the VS team...they
are doing so because they are the OS vendor and development
framework vendor and they get /massive/ advantages in the
Windows development tool arena because of that, even bigger
advantages in the .NET space than they ever did before.
Now, one /could/ argue that is using one monopoly to create
another...though they pretty much did /already/ have a
virtual monopoly in the Windows development tool space.
tie up framework releases to their own development tool releases,
and then create conditions such as seemingly preventing third
parties from producing compiler plug-ins for VS if said third
party also produces a separate, competing IDE <g>
 

"Simon Kissel" writes:
financial services business on this one.
 

Simon Kissel writes:
If I don't get a
--
Holger
 

Bob Dawson writes:
There's also information on the Delphi roadmap.
IMO, the issue here is about a flawed strategy. Regardless of how many
resources DevCo will have in the future, if they execute on a poor
strategy, the end result will be poor even if they execute flawlessly.
A "given" that is also important to consider is that MS will have more
resources, and I think that is a fairly safe assumption.
--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 

Holger,
for quite some time already, main work would be porting the
Borland toolchain and components used.
Simon
 

I.P. Nichols writes:
Bruce McGee pointed out this fear is very real. It doesn't matter if
it's irrational, most fear is irrational. So debating the issue on a
rational level based on the tech itself misses the point.
Most purchasing decisions are not completely based on rational thought.
Purchasing decisions involve "fashion", popularity, preference and
attitude. None of these things are rational, they are emotional. Good
sales people understand this; most techies minimize the importance of
these factors when making decisions of any kind, yet we are all subject
to them.
To dismiss paranoia/fear is missing the point. FUD is real, and a
*very* effective technique to control behavior, especially consumption.
If you don't think marketing, sales and politicians don't understand
this and use FUD effectively, then IMO you aren't paying attention.
If Microsoft's #1 goal isn't to ensure vendor lock-in and high switching
costs what is their #1 goal? Have they seen the light and .NET is a
purely altruistic endeavor for the benefit of the tech industry?
Every vendor out there wants lock-in and high switching costs. This is
where they make their profit. Make no mistake about it, Delphi is the
same way.
pay more in the end, but you're covered just in case. Do you not have
insurance?
Understanding why this is important to companies is to understand the
fundamentally confrontational relationship customers have with vendors.
Both need each other, but the vendor wants lock-in, they want to
maximize their profits. The customer wants to get more for less, they
want to pit vendors against each other in a competitive market place to
drive prices down and quality up. This is why this isn't just marketing
hype and spin, but why customers are seeking alternatives to MS.
--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 

I.P. Nichols writes:
are levelled at them as opposed to financial benefits - the latter
is pretty much a given with MS :-)
by Vista as a foundation for running sub-systems like WPF
and Indigo then I would say it /is/ pretty much becoming /at least/
part of the overall OS. Especially since all we have been hearing
from the .NET fans is how whole swathes of the new Vista OS will
only be available through managed APIs...yet, now you say it ain't
part of the OS - hmm, you can not have it both ways :-)
Anyway, as an aside, AFAIK there were no historical Windows
sub-systems based on that old VBRun DLL :-P
Merely something highly desirable or /literally/ essential in
that it is the /only/ choice for leveraging the full power of
.NET on Vista upwards as we go forward?
If .NET is increasingly becoming part of the OS and Visual Studio
is "essential" as the .NET implementation tool, effectively being
the only viable option then that position /could/ look to some folk
like MS are sailing darn close to that old "using one monopoly (OS)
to secure another (development tools)" legal nastiness...
defend the indefensible <g, d & r>
 

"lurkio" wrote
judge MS is arguing in front of.
bobD