Slashdot Mirror
Pointless IT Innovations Considered Harmful
Makarand writes "According to a comment column in the guardian innovations in IT are most often simply more trouble than they are worth. Most innovations in IT today are platform specific and are easy to
come up with in the computing fields. Innovating gets easier if the platform sticks around
for a long time. These innovations accrue incompatibilities making it difficult for users to switch platforms and absorb the costs of switching to a new platform. Users will not switch to
a competitor's product if they believe that their platform will be later updated to deliver the same benefits."
Are the companies that need the continous cash-flow of selling the latest upgrade every couple of years. (Naming no names. :)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The gist of this article seems to be that it is innovations that deviate from established standards, rather than innovation per se, that are harmful.
This is pretty much a no-brainer at this point in time.
innovations in IT are most often simply more trouble than they are worth
I see this everyday. Not just in the areas that they are talking about in the article. I see it most commonly on enterprise applications.
For example a company will have a mainframe based app that they have used for years through a terminal emulator. Everyone knows how to use it and flies through the application often typing several screens in advance. But, some bright spark thinks that green screens are passe and insists on "updating" the application. They spend LOTS of money developing some gui database application or, worse yet, some browser based interface to the application.
Suddenly, the application is slower than molasses, going up hill on a cold day. No one knows how to navigate the new interface and productivity takes a major dive.
Naturally, the bright sparks asssume the problem is old hardware and spend another fortune upgrading equipment to get performance back to where it was before. It's a total waste of time and money, not to mention that it pisses off the user community in a major way.
Is the tension between "innovation" and compatability. Nothing new there.
from the story
" Which isn't to say that the ThinkPad was not innovative. However, the innovations came in things like colour and finish, screen size, the new TrackPoint pointing device and short-lived "butterfly keyboard", bundled software, price (low by IBM standards), marketing and support. The ThinkPad innovated in areas that were valued by customers, and customers were therefore prepared to pay for them. However, it did it without departing too far from accepted industry standards, which would have made customers reject it as "incompatible". Lesson learned."
I have seen very few end users even *THINK* about future compatability if it has the bells and whistles they want/need today. Quite frankly the typical customer does not see WHY there should be so much problem: I've never heard a good reason why the new software can't at least do what the old software did the same way it did it; pretty piss poor UI design in their opinion. Unless one has a Microsoftian stranglehold why should anyone upgrade to new stuff that deosn't work as well as the old stuff; 'working well' being defined by the end user, not the IT department (who exists to serve the end user, not the other way around)
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
We never should have moved away from the 8" floppy disc! MFM hard drives were the best! Networking only leads to trouble!
Actually, though, the big value added with Linux will, for the foreseeable future, be the assurance that you will not get sucked into some long term recurrent license fees.
This shows a remarkable lack of insight into how similar things today are to a few decades ago. A few decades ago we had IBM mainframes and terminals with local blockmode editing; today we have web servers and PC's with web clients with form-filling capability. Are the PC's capable of much more? Yes. Are they often used to do much more? No, not really. The only real difference (ignorning frilly graphics) is that Internet Exploder and Netscrape crash a whole lot more often than a 3270-type mainframe terminal :-)
Eventually this corrodes the QA from "it still has a few bugs" to "the customers won't vomit at first sight, and we'll have 80 megs of patches next week". Very bad practice for the software and the soul.
I think this lack of upgrade cycle deadline fever is a big plus on the Linux/Open side.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The article's point, IMHO, is that change for change's sake is not good. Sometimes change is clearly the right thing to do - for example, replacing job-control language with a modern operating system is (usually) the right thing to do, as is replacing assembly language with a high-level language for writing applications. The gains in reliability and maintainability make the effort worthwhile. However, change just for the sake of change is often - usually? - leads to a degredation of reliability and maintainability, rather than the other way around. Companies that pursue a will'o'the'wisp often rush into a bog. The point is, it's not too much to ask managers to perform some basic cost-benefit analyses before they sign onto the latest fad.
[this
The article is from the Guardian. I don't see it on the Reg site.
While "[t]he chances of a company changing platforms in any given year is very fucking slim", we don't rewrite our apps every year, or every five, and large apps can live forever (witness the COBOL programmers dragged out of retirement for Y2K, etc.). Cross-platform compatibility makes sense.
Also, larger organizations already maintain a mix of servers (Windows/UNIX/Linux) and cross-platform (i.e., non-MS-specific) code allows for flexiblity.
This should come as a siprise to no one. 'innovation' is the strategy by which platform vendors differentiate themselves in a bid for greater market share. It's beneficial to the vendors so we won't see this sort of thing end any time soon. It locks their customers into tyheir platform for the long haul, which is why you will never see the same 'innovation' made to all or even several platforms at the same time. Leveraging innovation to facilitate greater synergy is the IT industry's answer to advertising verbage such as 'new and improved' you often see on any consumer product marketing materials. It certainly is harmful, but it isn't going to stop any time soon. There was something of a backlash to ptoptietary innovation back in '98 and '99 so vendors began to work more with open standards, as a half measure to apease consumers. Microsoft is a good example of this. Their strategy to 'embrace and extend' open standards, to again differentiate their product offerings has worked out extremely well to date. It certainly isn't ideal for the IT consumer, but this is where modern marketing and business practices meet the IT industry's little piece of the world-wide technology market.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Im sick of vendors thinking that it is ok to re-invent everything every couple of years and force all your customers to adapt to it.
Im even more sick of watching silly companies spend the re-structuring costs because they believe all the hype thats said.
Some IT departments spend all their time upgrading to get the latest versions of everything working together instead of just using what they have to its full potential.
Thats ridiculous.. just pick a technology and do something with it!
If a particular technology works for - use it! Dont let the marketing hype disuade you from using it.
Its more important to get your project done than it is to develop it on whatever someone tells you is the latest greatest technology.
-- NeTMoNGeR
it's wrong in the way that the words 'innovation' and 'pointless' are used and defined. Innovation, in and of itself, is not bad at all. It is the product or process or idea that has no merit, or is realized to have no value. But even with those *without* any value to it creators, the public can, and does, benefit (sometimes greatly) from that exercise. Example: the innovation that ANYTHING could be sold on the internet. or the innovation that brought about the idea and business model solely resting on advertising revenue. did it work ? no. did people lose their jobs, and billions of dollars ? yes. but that doesn't mean that the exercise was "pointless"...to the contrary, the current environment is now able to change and better predict future ideas on these precedents. "pointless" is a word that is not only subjective, but I would say incorrect in this article. Replace the word "pointless" with "sometimes doesn't produce something that the originators can't make money from".
Today's ERP systems (SAP, PeopleSoft, Oracle, etc) suffer from the exact same problem: they promise you the moon (and many times actually deliver it), but once you depend on it you're completely stuck with it. In the case of SAP (and the same case happens to other ERP systems) if later you want to change something it's going to cost you big. Plus you usually pay very high consulting and maintenance fees.
.Net.
The same can be said of other packaged applications which do not make public their data storage formats and/or communication protocols.
This is why I think it is such a big deal to have (1) a true cross-platform executable platform (i.e.: java), (2) a true cross-platform communications protocol and data interchange (i.e.: XML), and whenever possible (3) a comprehensible and standards-compliant-as-possible data repository (i.e.: mySQL, Postgress).
Note that regardless of the article being viased or not 9as some other readers here point out), the reality is that many IT managers are beginning to realize this now. This is why the huge push to Linux, Java, PHP, and XML, and many Open-Source technologies.
It is also why Linux, XML, and J2EE (Java 2 Enterprise Edition) has had such a success, and why many IT managers are thinking twice about Microsoft
Your comment exemplifies a major cause of the problem. The PC-based, Java only, mind view of so called "architects" are incapable of solving problems without using the platforms that they are familiar with. If a data format is your problem, fix the data format. Todays mainframes are perfectly capable of interfacing / integrating with any hardware / software platform. Yet, when faced with such problems, these "architects" apply the only hammer (PC solutions and Java designs) that they know off to the nail.
I'm not sure why these people reach architect level positions. Just the other day, one of these architects was advocating Adobe Distiller as a cost saving solution, when GNU/Ghostscript solves the same problem (converting .ps to .pdf) for much much less. Another one was re-architecting an asynchronous application to use SOAP when the existing email based solution had no known problems (other than it used a technology (sendmail and PERL) that the Java-only architect didnt want to learn about.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
But on that day that the ground moves under you, all that "lock in" suddenly turns around and bites you. Until now, the idea of going all Microsoft was good. All the Office products work well with each other, they work well with the OS. But now that plus is turning into a minus. If you want to keep using Office, you have to accept the next OS from Microsoft. You can't keep using what you have now. And if you have to make a change, why not look around? And if you know that everyone else is thinking twice, think three times!
Microsoft benefited from the last Great Change when Win 3.0 took off. Suddenly all the kings of the DOS world suffered a Reality Reset and had to compete on a new playing field. Microsoft's playing field. Why not switch from Word Perfect and Lotus 1-2-3 if you're changing the "OS"?
We live in interesting times.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
This isn't innovation; this is marketing attempting to create a demand to cover the costs of developing a new technology. GM did this in the early part of the 20th century. The product drove the market demand. WHen GM developed the GTO in the '60s, the initial plan was only to produce 5000 of them. However, when they were flooded with 15,000 orders, suddenly the market demand was driving the product development. Innovation needs to provide INCREASED value to the customer at the same or REDUCED cost. "Innovation" that is expensive for users isn't innovation at all. It's creating a sustained revenue stream for the company developing the technology at the EXPENSE of the user.
Now, the MCA developed by IBM may have been innovative on a purely technical basis; however, to adopt this innovation it would have cost the end users a lot of money in terms of replacing already existing hardware that was incompatible with the new architecture. If the MCA had been made compatible with existing hardware, then it would have been innovative. (Risking exposing my hardware design naiveness here, but that's OK)
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
If we could start again from scratch, with hindsight, we might well decide to adopt the MCA bus, or something similar. Since we are not starting from scratch, we have to consider the switching costs.
PCI anyone? MCA failed because IBM made it too expensive relative to the hoads of imported clones that soon swamped the market. Yet CERN made a better bus and it was adopted under reasonable use terms. The more open standard won.
One of the many reasons that Apple lost the desktop wars was the conclusion arrived at by every rational person: that Apple was bound to lose. One day,
Apple is dying, he says. Right. I can't think of a better computer for most people to own. But that pales in comparison to the finishing touch:
One day, Microsoft could face a similar problem [that Apple supposedly suffered] with GNU/Linux. So not only must it maintain Windows' dominance, it has to maintain the perception of future dominance. In this case, of course, the answer is Microsoft.net.
Of course! Now I see the answer, all of the illogical strings above have tied my thoughts into a knot, but M$.NOT will set me free. I am free of fear and confusion knowing that M$ Office will alaways predominate, that my platoform performance and security is much less important than conforming so I don't look foolish. Yes, free from fear, uncertianty and doubt. I am a rational person and now know that market lock in is more important than standards. I'll just sit in my single window manager (AKA Windoze) prison and watch as warring companies smash all the ammenities so that nothing ever works right and what does work won't for long. I'll eat whatever new trash M$ throws into my cage.
What a laugh. It is so obvious that free code with it's transparency and freedom of modification solves all of the problems the author can dream up and that others suffered. Free software is modular, replacable and never dies. MCA runs just fine under linux and a 486 PS/2 makes an OK workstation that can effectively interoperate with more modern hardware. Under propriatory code, PS/2 is simply junk like most any older computer. Free software has been ported out to all maner of hardware and it's users can make use of anything out there, Arm to IA64. Because XFree86 is free and open, I can have any number of window managers, each vasty superior to M$, and they can all interoperate together. Even the silly painful world of M$ Office formats has been made less painful by Open Office, K Office and other free and open codes that can read that crap and extract the information out of it. It's amazing that the article started off with a very perceptive view of the evils of propriatory closed software development but ended up recomending no change except the adoption of some new M$ garbage.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.