It's Not About The Technology

prostoalex writes "No one quite knows the exact point when high-tech marketing went wrong. When instead of selling distinct products and services, the company Web sites and brochures started pitching 'the next big thing.' When even software developers don't have a slightest idea about what's being sold to them. Raj Karamchedu from Silicon Image, however, feels that certain things in high-tech marketing should be straightened out, hence this book." Read on for Moskalyuk's review of Karamchedu's It's Not About the Technology . It's not about the technology author Raj Karamchedu pages 230 publisher Springer rating 4 reviewer Alex Moskalyuk ISBN 0387233504 summary Developing the craft of thinking for a high-tech corporation

20 chapters are written from the point of view of tech marketing executive, as Karamchedu tries to answer the question of why some products gain a loyal audience and enjoy commercial success, while the others are simply additions to the dusty shelves of history. Everyone has their favorite comparison, where a technically advanced product does not gain acceptance on the market while a supposedly inferior competitor is rolling in cash. Hey, IBM built an entire theory on how it was safe to let Microsoft sell its not-so-great DOS with IBM PCs in order to push the hardware from the warehouse while the company was preparing the next revision of state-of-the-art OS/2 -- which, of course, everyone will buy on the day of release in order to replace Microsoft's software.

History occasionally teaches tech marketers some curious lessons, and the conclusion that the author comes up is summarized in the book title. The title might sound like an insult to a design engineer, but in most of the cases the success in the market is not guaranteed by superiority of technology. Karamchedu is on the mission to find out why.

The first chapters take us through a conflict inside a company. Seldom will you find a high-tech startup where marketing people do not clash with engineers. Marketers promise the features to the customers in order to adhere to the mantra of "we listen to our customers," only to see feature requests denied by the engineers, since the budgets and deadlines are fixed. Marketers then complain to the executives about lack of response from the engineering staff and their inability to deal with the new features, while engineers fight back, claiming that the product is about to miss the deadline even with existing feature set and overworked staff.

Later, Karamchedu focuses on a second problem, peculiar to high-tech marketers: after being immersed in the technology world for too long, they cannot relate to the customers. Hence grandmas in Best Buy staring at the computer described as "P4 3.0 GHz 256 DDR 40.0 GB DVD/CD-RW" when all she wants to know is whether she can check email and view photos of the grandkids. Marketers forget to empathize with the customers. They spend too much time with engineering, and like to tell customers how the new microprocessor has a much wider front-side bus, or how their new piece of software supports dual-core systems, without really telling the customer how that will improve business processes or increase efficiency.

The third part of the book takes a look at a typical semiconductor company and tries to draw the plan of attack for a starting marketing executive. At this point the book turns into a manual on high-tech marketing, which the author hopes the readers will find useful, as there are no set rules and algorithms for launching successful marketing campaigns in high-tech world.

The book is quite insightful, but one can't help but feel that it is missing something. It will probably prove to be a valuable read to anyone facing the daunting task of marketing a high-tech product, but even though I got to the last page of the book, I found the title to be too terse and dry, lacking concrete examples and not quite coherent as far as the chapter-by-chapter arrangement. The preface and the author's description of the book are available online. It's also strange that in an attempt to write a textbook on high-tech marketing, the author decided to provide no case studies whatsoever. In Search of Stupidity from Apress is a great book about high-tech marketing, since it tells the story of a failed marketing attempt and also tries to figure out the reasons, but in It's Not About the Technology, Karamchedu just tells years of his personal experience, without references to specific companies or projects, which makes the book a compilation of abstractions on high-tech marketing.

In his spare time Alex enjoys reading technology and business titles. He also keeps a collection of free books for readers on a budget." Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

Bullsh** detector

[baggachipz]

When looking at a brochure-style website dealing with services or products, count how many times the word "solution" is used. The higher the number, the more full of crap they are. The all-time record is held by ibm.com.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[JeffTL]

I've noticed that myself. And also note how often there isn't an explicit price tag on a "solution" -- that's what makes it different from a product, which is when you can see what you're considering getting and for how much money without promising your firstborn and getting on a mailing list.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[micromoog]

That's funny, because IBM actually does drive a lot of the innovation, and definitely performs a lot of the work, in IT. "We intend to sell dog food on the Internet" is a much better bullshit signal.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[baggachipz]

Very true. I find it hilarious that I got modded as flamebait -- we speak nothing but truth.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[mOoZik]

I don't think I understand your dog food reference. Care to expound?

Re:Bullsh** detector

[goofyheadedpunk]

Pets.com was an ill fated dotcom company that aimed to sell pet food over the internet. That's most likely what he's referencing.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[Anonymous Coward]

but... but... Pets can't drive. How else are they supposed to get their food?

Re:Bullsh** detector

[Anonymous Coward]

pets.com was one of the hyped companies of the Internet hysteria of the late 90s. Their business case has been repeatedly summed up as "we intend to sell dog food on the Internet".

The GPP is a bit awkward - the dog food reference could also refer to software, as in the phrase "eat our dogfood" to mean using your own software product.

My bet is on the first take though.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[Anonymous Coward]

Pets can't use the internet either, dumbass.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[AviLazar]

A few things to note is, in B2B transactions prices are almost never discussed in the "advertisement." This is because prices in B2B are generally negotiable. This has carried itself (sometimes) to B2C transactions. Nothing is wrong with this. A lot of times companies do not want the prices listed because they are so expensive - and the face explanation of the product does not show exactly what the customer is getting (i.e. world class support). Other times prices are not listed because quantity rules, or the sales person might be willing to take a cut just to help make the sale - or the company might get special packaging (buy product X for 1000 bucks, but if you buy product Y we will give oyu X for 800 bucks), etc...

Though I do agree, somewhat, that more fluff talk = more BS...but that should not exclude someone from researching the product. I would rather have a well thought out, complex sentence that shows some imagination then the "Me John, Me hit Jane head. Jane now mine."

Re:Bullsh** detector

[pileated]

I sort of doubt that IBM could top MS when it started marketing Visual Studio Projects as Visual Studio Solutions many years ago. I believe that defines crap as far as "solutions" goes.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably frustrated in not knowing how 'solution' differs from 'products and/or services' and that's why you're dissing it. When you're just getting started, you may offer just products or just services or JUST 'products and services'. Further evolution may bring you to a level of capability where those monikers don't adequately describe your business offerings anymore. 'products' implies a thing. 'services' implies actions. Combine the two in an offering (perhaps a "project") and if you can identify the offering as solving a problem but the implementation is always slightly different but in the same category, it may better be described as a well thought out "solution" (as compared to perhaps someone with just technical skills who performs in a rather ad hoc manner). Another way to look at it is that products + services + well thought out, defined and evolved implementation applied to specific needs = solution. So, when used correctly, there is a difference. 'solution' implies an evolved offering with well establish ancillary and supporting consituents (perhaps, process, know-how, tested, optimized, proven, documentation, a workshop to do it in etc., or all those things and more as examples). Kind of like the difference between being prepared vs. just showing up. My guess is that IBM knows these distinctions and that you do not (did not until now?).

Re:Bullsh** detector

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that undisclosed rates leaves potential customers thinking (and in many instances it is true) that they will be dealing with a business that has no standard pricing/rates and they will be gouged for whatever they can be gouged for. Personally, I would never call a consultant who didn't list rates. Similarly, I wouldn't call upon one who charged the SAME rate no matter what he (or his staff) was doing. (Anyone else irked by dentists who charge their professional rate for work done by their assistants?! Give me a break!)

But the reason why "solutions" aren't priced is because it depends on the customers requirements (the SCOPE of the project or implementation). The important thing for the customer to know is HOW the solution will be billed. Perhaps time & materials (simple small biz network for example maybe). Perhaps at some fraction of the value it brings to you or your business (save the life of Enron corp(se) for example). Remember, a solution is largely defined by the customer's requirements.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[Walt Dismal]

Clearly you can trust "Cosmic Internet Technologies Solutions", based in India. Among their products they offer "miscellaneous solutions". I kind of hope that does not include airline software.

Apparently they haven't yet met "Kosmic Technology Solutions", also based in India, which provides "solutions for a dynamic environment where business and technology strategies converge". Gosh, don't you just love all that convergence?

Re:Bullsh** detector

[bhadreshl]

There is a distinction between a 'product', 'service', and 'solution'.
The service sector is being overpopulated with competition as outsourcing increases.
So companies have no choice, but to innovate, and provide a *solution*. This "solution" does a lot more than just a simple service. This is what will drive the service sector in the future
Wouldn't it be better if a software product provided a solution rather than just a service. Your statement is also valid because some companies nowadays say they are providing a "solution" to sound almighty, but in fact, it is just a service or a product.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[Bush Pig]

I've just finished reading Don Watson's "Dictionary of Weasel Words", recently published in Australia (I don't know whether it's available in the rest of the world, but there's an associated website, www.weaselwords.com.au). It's a merciless assault on the misuse of language by marketeers, managers, politicians and other such weasels. His definition of solution includes a quote from Hudson Human Capital Consultants: "... our consultants are able to deliver the entire end-to-end solution for employers with the minimum of fuss."

You'd probably enjoy it as much as I did.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[Anonymous Coward]

"...count how many times the word "solution" is used. The higher the number, the more full of crap they are. The all-time record is held by ibm.com."

Yeah, and we all know how full of crap IBM are. Bunch of fly-by-night cowboys.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that depends on whether you want a product that facilitates the delivery of significant synergies in actualised dynamic solutions convergence, or you want something that actually does the job.

I'd take 'actually does the job' any day of the week.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[LaCosaNostradamus]

There isn't a price tag on "solution" since in the mind of the marketing twit, you'd pay anything for a "solution". Price is no object for things which solve your problems. And thence lay the heart of the high-tech scam: it will solve our problems. Instead, it has created many, many more problems.

After all, what would you pay for a "problem"? That's exactly what IBM, Microsoft, Sun and all the rest are really selling you: PROBLEMS. High-tech infrastructure is plagued with problems. But no marketing drone is going to even go near the honesty in that.

I've been busily replacing perfectly good Pentium IIs with expensive P4s. The price alone should have told the company execs that this is a PROBLEM. But they are sold on "solutions" ... for instance, on the myth that employees are a "problem", so replace them with machines. But machines introduce all kinds of other problems ... which marketing n00bz never seem to include in their presentations and shiny brochures.

Don't get me wrong here. I approve of selling problems as "solutions". Those are giant IQ tests, and America's corporate execs are failing them left and right. What bothers me unduly is how long it's taking the American investor to realize this. After all, stupid people are simply a baaaaaad investment.

Re:Bullsh** detector

[Anonymous Coward]

"We intend to sell dog food on the Internet" is a much better bullshit signal.

I assume this is a reference to the defunct pets.com complete with sock puppet. You may be able to answer a question I've had for a long time. Ever since the demise of pets.com, I've heard innumerable people refer to it as the most obviously flawed internet business ever. My question: how is/was it obvious that pet.com should fail? Is there really something obviously bad about it (size of market, etc) or is it just that people love to bash it because it had the sock puppet? I've never heard anyone explain it, which certainly leaves me with the impression that there is no analysis behind the bashing.

Blame M$

[superpulpsicle]

It went wrong when the biggest players in the market can sell lemon to the consumers and get away with it. Think of how many versions of M$ windows are unusable before a service pack 2 or 3.

Imagine buying a car and it doesn't work until 6 months later when your manufacturer has a recall for you. Commercial hi-tech industry seriously need a good role model.

Re:Blame M$

[garcia]

Think of how many versions of M$ windows are unusable before a service pack 2 or 3.

Hmm, Windows2000 and XP ran just fine for me right out of the box without service packs. Yeah, you needed a good firewall (hardware and software) and you needed to make sure some services weren't running but I really don't consider that to make the "unusuable".

Honestly, I wouldn't run ANY OS without the above mentioned changes being made to the configuration.

Should we say that RedHat is bad because everyone knew that you shouldn't use a RH release before X.3?

Re:Blame M$

[mOoZik]

There were other choices besides Windows at that time, but guess what? The consumers made a choice. Whether or not it was prudent is subjective, but no one forced anyone to purchase anything. I have been using MS products for more than a decade, and I can tell you I have not had problems. One can similarly state that no one should buy a computer with an OS that doesn't support the vast majority of hardware, software, and since it is a minority player in the OS market, support is lousy for non-nerds. Get my drift?

Re:Blame M$

[nitelord]

That's why I just download the latest pirated copy with SP2 included. Works great every time.

Re:Blame M$

[Soko]

Yeah, the grandparent is a zealot - over-exagerating about "OMG, w1nd0z3 is sooo crashy and insecure". I use XP, and rather like it. Since I'm a geek in the know, I can keep Windows running safely and smoothly, when I need to run it.

The point you didn't address, however, is that "Microsoft is the cause of this problem". He's dead wrong that "Crappy software from Redmond" is the root cause, but he has the right culprit. Over-Hyped, crappy software from Redmond that came pre-installed on every bloody PC is the cause.

The reason marketroids in this industry over hype everything is that a tech companies success is judged againt Microsofts success. Well, you lying, back stabbing^W^W^Wmarketing people, listen up:

Microsoft is, and always will be, a one time thing. There will never be a company that grows as fast as they have in this industry, period. Get over it, and start telling the truth, please - you can't replicate thier level of success by hyping something. "Once bitten, twice shy" and all that.

*glares directly @ google*

Soko

Re:Blame M$

[Anonymous Coward]

That's rich man. Real rich! I had problems in every OS I've used. I know you're lying when you say "no problems" because there's always one thing or another that doesn't quite work right. It's the nature of computers.
But anyway, all this isn't Microsoft's fault, or the consumer's fault. It's IBM's fault, and that of every PHB who wanted IBM solutions, because of the brand name.

Re:Blame M$

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yeah. But how many Gnome/KDE versions are usable before version 2.8.0/3.2.0 (compared to "M$ windows")?

Re:Blame M$

[peragrin]

My biggist paranoid fear about doing that, is that you never really know if they slipped in a nice little trojan and hole in the swiss cheese firewall to begin with.

For testing I don't mind but for machine that keep my data, I only trust certian systems.

Re:Blame M$

[xtype2.5]

In the automotive world, the M$ equivalent is Jaguar!

Re:Blame M$

[Audacious]

I believe that the blurring of lines between what is being sold to someone and what is being leased has not helped things out at all.

My take on the above is:

Sold: An item is sold to you when you do not have to make any other payments to the manufacturer and you do not have to give it back after a specific period of time.

Lease: An item is leased when you have to make payments based up a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly time period and, after the lease has expired, the item has to be returned to the manufacturer.

From the above, if you "buy" a copy of Windows and do not have to make any additional payments, then the copy has been sold to you - not leased. If this is true (ie: M$ sold the software to you and did not lease it) then all of the leasing agreements imposed by the EULA are null and void. Further, your rights as a purchaser of a product have just increased ten fold because there are a lot of rules and regulations about items which are sold which do not pertain to items which are leased.

With the recent decision by a court in California that M$ et al must display the EULA on the outside of the box and/or have it readily available for viewing before a purchase is made - the distinction of whether a piece of software is sold to the end user or leased will become a greater issue in the near future.

Re:Blame M$

[AviLazar]

Oh my god I think I just saw a cat and a dog living in harmony, the moon turning blood red, and the sun going black as coal itself. People defending M$ - the angels are blaring their trumpets - Bill Gates is logging into /. for the first time and not seeing his name shredded :)

All in all, I have used win 95 all the way up - and while they all had their issues - nowhere did I ever call them unuseable (well maybe except ME which stayed on my hard drive only as long as it took me to reformat)...Everything has its flaws its just a matter of knowing how to fix them. Prior to SP2 I ran ZA, separate pop-up blockers, etc.

I wouldn't go on saying that MS is a one time thing or no other company will ever grow as fast as them in this industry....Never is a big word :D, and they sure as hell didn't do it over night.

Though asking a marketer to not spin something into something its not is like asking a politician to return the stolen money...

Re:Blame M$

[westlake]

Over-Hyped, crappy software from Redmond that came pre-installed on every bloody PC is the cause.

The integrated, pre-installed, software bundle has been the key to success in the mass market. Connect the cables, switch on the power, and in under ten minutes you are good to go.

Re:Blame M$

[BoldAndBusted]

If they ran "fine for me right out of the box", as your say, then you probably were not asking too much out of them. You probably didn't care too much about stability, uptime, or security. But, hey, everyone has their standards. I can't imagine that you were using them to support more than a SOHO, because each of them were plagued with major issues for large deployments until several service packs of fixes. And that's just for the clients...

Re:Blame M$

[Raijin Z]

Hmm. From what I can discern, Windows "sux" because you can absolutely ruin it if you're stupid enough. Nix doesn't exactly present its delicate parts to the average moron user, so it's harder to kill... Same for Apple's offerings, right?

You know, if you put antifreeze in the oil reservoir, your engine will die. It's not the manufacturer's fault.

Re:Blame M$

[mangu]

Windows2000 and XP ran just fine for me right out of the box without service packs

"Works for me" doesn't count as a performance metric. In my case, W-XP got a virus/worm (the one that says your system will reboot in 60 seconds) about three minutes after being connected to the outside world. And I still (after more than a year) haven't got my older hardware to work. Things like an Adaptec SCSI card and a Genius scanner, not some obscure, little known, hardware. The least one would expect from a "usable" OS is that the hardware that was supported in the former version keeps working. Compared to that, my Linux works perfectly out of the box, supporting all my hardware, without any security problems, ever.

Oh, sure, YMMV, but for a company that invests so heavily in marketing, that is so ready to present studies proving how superior the "commercial" business model is, as compared to the FOSS model, one would expect more.

I used to be a big Microsoft fan, but that was when the other alernatives I knew were IBM, Control Data, and Digital. No one will argue that VMS is much safer and more stable than the early versions of MS-Windows, but the freedom and flexibility one had in working in the Microsoft environment, compared to the rigid and limited PDP/VAX machines was something I enjoyed. By 1995, when I first tried Linux (Yggdrasil), it was an interesting but unwieldy alternative to a then relatively mature Windows95. In 1998 I was using Linux (Slackware) exclusively for printer and file servers. My main concern then was stability, I got an average 8 months uptime out of Linux, limited mostly by power outages and hardware problems, compared to the several-times-a-day for Windows98. Today I use Linux for everything, except a few games.

I think the heavy-handed use of marketing is thebig problem. If DEC and Control Data weren't as user-friendly as Microsoft in the 1980's it was because those were professional systems, rather than the hobbyist-like Microsoft systems of those days. But today, when I compare Linux to Microsoft, it's nothing like the Microsoft/DEC situation 20 years ago.

Today it's not an amateur-vs-professional thing, it's more like good-vs-evil. I had lots of interaction with DEC and IBM in the 1980's, and I don't remember their marketing ever using such heavy-handed tactics as Microsoft uses today. One would always expect a biased but honest attitude from them. And they did give updates for free. If something didn't work perfectly with their systems, one would always get a patch to correct the problem, without having to buy a newer, more expensive, version. That's my definition of "usable". Do what it's supposed to do. Sure, to get XP to work securely you can download SP2 for free, but where is the service pack to get Windows98 working? I paid for it, you know, as part of the price of a computer I bought, I have the right to have a decent Windows98 working, without having to pay extra for an XP licence.

Re:Blame M$

[rpozz]

I think the problem is that Windows is far too easy to screw up, and stupidity isn't a factor. We've all seen someone click 'Yes' when they shouldn't and get flooded with spyware, or whatever. I've seen some people who are clearly experienced users fuck up a Windows installation many times.

So, why don't you explain who you would describe as 'stupid'? Anyone with less skill than a sysadmin?

Re:Blame M$

[westlake]

What you buy from Microsoft is the physical media (if provided) and a license to use their software, under the terms and conditions of an end-user agreement.

Joe leases his house or his forklift, not his software.

Re:Blame M$

[bdcrazy]

I've heard of martians, linuxians, and earthlings, where do certians come from, and can i try one out for a spin?

Re:Blame M$

[geekboy642]

Oh sure, Windows may have been fairly usable at 3.1...before that, I'd have to disagree very strongly. Then we had Windows 4.0, I'm sorry '95...5.0/98, 6.0/ME, 7.0/XP...hey it's a fairly decent operating system now!

It only took 10 years and seven versions. I think KDE/Gnome are ahead of the curve.

Re:Blame M$

[avanha]

Conversely, *nixes are too complicated to be useful without Sys Admin skills. I've seen users who are otherwise competent at a loss working on a unix of some sort. Things are improving, but nix is still nowhere near as easy to administer, even on a simple level. Personally, I use Linux quite a bit, but it took me a lot of effort to learn how to administer it at the same level that I know Windows. Windows is just more intuitive then any *nix (excluding OSX).

Re:Blame M$

[killjoe]

Windows 2000 was the fifth or sixth iteration of windows. Hardly what I consider a "fresh" product.

XP did ship with an awful PNP security hole too.

Re:Blame M$

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong as usual. You buy software. Please see Adobe vs. Softman for details.

Re:Blame M$

[Sj0]

Yeah, the grandparent is a zealot - over-exagerating about "OMG, w1nd0z3 is sooo crashy and insecure". I use XP, and rather like it. Since I'm a geek in the know, I can keep Windows running safely and smoothly, when I need to run it.

You know, I've got this big monitor sitting on my desk suffering from a cold solder joint somewhere deep inside it's bowels, so sometimes it blinks out, but if I hit it just right, it works fine for another few days. The lid on my laptop won't stay up because it's gettin on in age and has seen a lot of use, but if I balance it just like so, it stays up fine, and if I use an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse, it's fine anyway. On the laptop you need to roll the headphone jack around to get a solid connection or you can't hear anything out of the speakers.

Just because I know how to make them work doesn't mean they aren't broken.

Up until Windows XP Service Pack 2, a windows machine could be hacked by a virus, infected, and turned into an attacker minutes after being placed on a network, just by being placed on the network. Even now, Internet Explorer security is poor at best, an oxymoron at worst. For a long time before the issue was finally addressed, Outlook Express would propogate viruses just by showing an e-mail in the preview plane. It's gotten to the point where rather than try to create software that isn't hacked in minutes, they'd rather just give everyone a free firewall, which is fine(personally, I think that denying access to programs that don't ask for it first is just smart design), but doesn't make the software underneath secure. After all, sticking a car with all the doors open and the keys in the ignition unsupervised behind a chain link fence doesn't change the fact that the doors are all open and the keys are in the ignition and nobody is watching.

Re:Blame M$

[Audacious]

Correct and incorrect. As another person replied: You are buying the software. It is a sale and no more. Yet M$ and many others have tried to twist the word license to mean lease. The reason is because under lease laws the software remains the property of the people who produced the software. Under a sale some (but not all) of the copyright's rights pass to the new owner. This issue has already been dealt with numerous times in the selling and reselling of books as well as the normal usage of parts of a book in other books (as in a reference or a paragraph or two).

In the case stated (Adobe vs Softman), all that Softman wanted to do was to get rid of the software. To resell it. Adobe sued them to prevent them from doing so. The judge correctly deduced that when Softman bought the hardware/software package that it was a sale and not a lease as Adobe tried to assert. The judge went even further though stating that ALL EULAs were invalid because of their overbearing nature. That EULAs had extended their reach farther than any copyright law allows. Placing undue burdens upon those who purchased software not only to be clairvoyant, but to assume burdens not easily understood or complied with.

My prophecy (which is a no brainer) is that M$ and others will again go back to Washington and ask for even stricter copyright laws which give them unlimited time, power, and rights so they can have their way. So speaks the Grand Poobah! (Like they aren't already trying to do this.) Be sure to write everyone in federal, state, and local governments and let them know you want the DMCA repealed and a more balanced law put into effect.

Later!

Re:Blame M$

[westlake]

Softman was a retailer not an end-user. The decision I found was on a motion for a preliminary injunction, which meant that the law had to be read in the light most favorable to Softman. Softman v. Adobe

Re:Blame M$

[Audacious]

Hi! I hate to reply to your message twice but I remembered something I should have put into the first message that I believe is very, very important.

Under the copyright laws, when you BUY something (and not when you lease it) - you have the right to make a copy and give it to the following people:

1. Your wife/husband
2. Your children
3. Your parents
4. Your brothers and sisters

This is called the immediate family clause of the copyright laws. Remember that copyrights are not meant to obstruct the entire disemination of information. It is only meant to slow it down to a reasonable level. That is why there were court battles over whether or not you could let someone else read a book you had bought. The answer was not only yes but HELL YES! Once you have read a book you can give it to whomever you please. The same is true of software you can just GIVE it to whomever you please so long as you are not keeping it. But the special provisions of the copyright laws state that you can make copies and give these copies to your immediate family (as described above).

Further, you can give one copy to your best friend as well. This is where Napster messed up. You can not have a million best friends. You can have only one. And just because you happen to know someone doesn't mean they are your best friend. They are just an acquaintance. Why? Because there can only be one best friend. Not a couple million. That is why they are called your best friend.

This is something which the software companies are fighting over as well. They do not want you to give copies to your immediate family. They want to excluded from that. They want to be - special. But everyone has to be treated the same. So if you can do this with everything else - you can also do it with software. And this is what a lot of the fighting, new rules, and everything else boils down to. The companies want every single person in the world to have to buy a copy of their software for their own personal use but the copyright laws say you don't have to do so and these companies don't like that.

This country is of, by, and for the PEOPLE of the United States - not the corporations of the United States. We, the people suffer them to exist. They do not suffer us to exist. We are not their slaves and we have lived together (if not in perfect harmony then at least in some kind of co-existence where we don't kill each other off) for centuries. But the problem with merchants (in general) and not any one entity specifically) is that they tend to want to rule, like a king, over everyone and everything. The earliest known fight between the rights of people and the rights of merchants is (excuse me for sidestepping here) in the bible when Jesus threw the merchants out of the church. How dare they invade a religious temple! Right? Well, look at churches now. They are pretty much just another corporation. So the merchant's invasion is complete is it not?

Merchants do not know any better than you or I how to make things work the best you can. But they are great at dividing up the spoils and trying to keep everyone else from becoming as great as they are (or as rich as they are). You see, they learned from the Pharises, many centuries ago, that if you write words down on a piece of paper and you get enough military might to back you, then anything is possible. So now we have companies which are above the law (Congress put the insurance companies above the law when they began HMOs and PPOs and it wasn't until much later that that law was declared unconstitutional), companies attempting to twist our laws and rights so we don't have any (DMCA et al), and companies which are making bogus claims and using the FBI, CIA, and the United States Government's name as a way to enforce out laws in other countries(many examples could be given like to teenager in Norway who was arrested) which should be illegal. Basically, the people of the world are taking a back seat

Who is the customer?

[rainmayun]

If the people making the purchase decisions aren't the software engineers, then why should the advertisements be tailored to them? of course I am speaking out of the side of my neck... in a more ideal environment, the purse-string-holder would consult the geeky-technician for an opinion before pulling the trigger on any tech purchases.

Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[Ckwop]

I don't know about you but I think he has egg on his face.. ASP.Net was a revolution..

For the first time rather than having three hundred asp/php pages with cut-and-copy disease we had a way to make structured code that could be developed very quickly and maintained easily.

At work we've got loads of legacy ASP and lots of new .NET stuff. I'll probably never understand all the ASP. Cut-and-copy disease has made the thing a fucking pain to maintain. In contrast, the .NET stuff is readily understood.

I don't think .NET was a tremendous revolution but it did improve things considerably from a web development point of view.

Simon.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[CastrTroy]

There's no excuse for having cut and paste disease run rampant in your asp code. There was much better ways to manager your code. Code behind pages are nothing new. If you wanted your code hidden from the page design, all you had to do was make an include file with all the page processing code, and leave the page design where it belongs. Just because ASP.Net forces this upon the developer, doesn't mean it couldn't be done in old ASP. Things can be just as bad in ASP.Net as they were in ASP, if your developers don't follow good design techniques.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[That's Unpossible!]

I don't know about you but I think he has egg on his face.. ASP.Net was a revolution..

That is highly debatable, but Joel was talking about .NET. You're talking about one aspect and more easily defined part of .NET, called ASP.NET.

Back in 2000, it *WAS* confusing as to what the fuck .NET actually was supposed to be. People would ask me what it was, being a developer they thought I knew, and I could usually muster was, "Well, it's a lot of things all under one umbrella."

Now when people say ".NET" they are usually talking about ASP.NET or the .NET APIs. But back when Joe's article came out, .NET was being bandied about to talk about everything, from Windows .NET Server (aka Windows 2003 Server), to the new API/platform to replace COM, to a set of web services (like Passport), etc.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[Anonymous Coward]

In otherwords your code was a complete pile of shite before because you don't know how to code, but now you have all these predefined functions to call to output completly broken HTML / Javascript you reckon things are better? You traded cut/paste not knowing what the hell was going on, to call predefined function / create object from predefined class still not knowing what the hell is going on.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[Jeff Carr]

Joel wasn't refering to ASP.NET, he was referring to .NET in general. If you check the article How Microsoft Lost the API War, you will see what he meant more specifically. He actually quite likes ASP.NET.

However, ASP itself wasn't soley responsible for the problems with cut-and-copy disease. It was a problem of developers thinking at page level versus creating an application that handled page generation. The problem could be prevented with ASP, although admittedly it did encourage that style of coding.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[avandesande]

nothing you couldnt do in jsp/tag libraries

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[CaptnMArk]

Relative to ASP, yes. But compared to good java frameworks it's nothings special. (And there's competition on the Java side which means things are improving faster).

And don't get me started on "web projects" in VS2003. A piece of crap if I ever saw one.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[Mr. Slippery]

For the first time rather than having three hundred asp/php pages with cut-and-copy disease we had a way to make structured code that could be developed very quickly and maintained easily.

I never touch ASP, but if your PHP suffers from "cut-and-copy" you need to take a cattle prod to the developers.

This is a coding practices issue, not a language issue - the legacy code at my current employer is C++ CGI programs that suffer greatly from the use of cut-and-paste rather than code libraries. It's just about the worst C++ code I've ever seen, but that's not C++'s fault. PHP makes it easy to create reusable modules that you can just "require_once"; if developer's don't, that's not PHP's fault.

"Our old code in Language X sucks, our new code in Language Y is better written" doesn't mean that X is better than Y.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[jdhutchins]

ASP.Net was not the first time you could use modular programming in web pages. You can do it in perl, you can do it in PHP, and you can do it in Java. If you had significant amounts of copy-and-paste code in every page, you probably had web designers instead of programmers write your website. ASP.Net was not a revolution.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[Anonymous Coward]

New code always looks better than old. Look at your .Net stuff in a few years after it has had a chance to decay and you'll think it's just as bad.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[lack1uster]

"Our old code in Language X sucks, our new code in Language Y is better written" doesn't mean that X is better than Y.

I know what you meant, but for clarity's sake, that should be written as:

"Our old code in Language X sucks, our new code in Language Y is better written" doesn't mean that Y is better than x.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[LnxAddct]

Think asp.net is nice? Give Java Server Pages a try. With the Java Standard Tag Libraries, Struts, and other tools, writing a complete, scalable, efficient web application isn't much more complicated than knowing html and its ten times easier to maintain.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, what? ASP.NET and .NET - another microsoft rip off job, this time of J2EE with a nice IDE slapped on.

I dont disagree that ASP.NET was a great improvement over ASP, but it sure wasnt a revolution, nor innovative.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you but I think he has egg on his face.. ASP.Net was a revolution..

He never claimed otherwise. He was pointing out that all the hype coming out of Microsoft about .NET contained pretty much zero information content. If .NET had taken over the world, he'd still be right.

Oh, and everybody else saying you don't know what you are talking about re: modular web development are right.

Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now?

[Karma Farmer]

I've tried a lot of Java web frameworks, and I've never found one that's even close to ASP.Net. ASP.Net is very, very, very nice.

I suspect that JSF with a decent component library and good tool support could be as nice, but that doesn't exist yet. Maybe someday.

Word

[t_allardyce]

It took me 3 years to have a basic understanding of what .NET was. 3 years just to figure out that it was basically Java.

Re:Word

[GGardner]

It wasn't you. It took MS three years to figure out what they wanted to sell was basically Java.

Re:Word

[Swamii]

It took me 3 years to have a basic understanding of what .NET was. 3 years just to figure out that it was basically Java.

As a former Java developer, it tooks me less than a week to discover that .NET was much more than Java. From a purely technical and programmatic standpoint, .NET's inclusion of operator overloading, value types, enums, delegates, multiple langauge support built in rather than added as an afterthought, just to name a few, truely make .NET much more than another Java. If it took you 3 years to discover that, then you need to take off your Java zealot blinders.

Looking at the bigger picture, .NET isn't just the framework & the languages though. For Microsoft, .NET is a strategy, a marketing phrase, a programming framework, a set of languages and tools. This is where the confusion set in as to what exactly is .NET, and it's Microsoft's fault for slapping the ".NET" moniker on everything.

Re:Word

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was javaly Basic...

Re:Word

[skrolle2]

You list some neat pieces of syntactic sugar that generally makes C# a lot nicer to program than Java, but to call that "much more" is a gross overstatement. They're both reasonably high-level object-oriented compiled virtual machine-using languages with large class-libraries. The only large difference is that C# is very much geared towards XML in all forms (which didn't exist when Java was made), but other than that the differences are minor.

Re:Word

[Anonymous Coward]

From a purely technical and programmatic standpoint, .NET's inclusion of operator overloading, value types, enums, delegates, multiple langauge support built in rather than added as an afterthought, just to name a few, truely make .NET much more than another Java.

You're talking about Java the language. He's talking about Java the platform.

Re:Word

[Swamii]

Sorry, but multiple langauge support, delegates, value types, almost everything I listed is not syntactic sugar.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Built for multiple language support: nothing to do with making your code look pretty; having multiple languages (currently more than 40) targetting the framework opens up the platform to a wide range of developers who use the right language for the right task.

Delegates: Type safe function pointers, enabling one represent a function as a variable, and integrated true event based programming (rather than Java's interface-as-events model) are weaved throughout the framework and act as a fundamental CIL type; not just syntax candy.

value types: Lightweight classes that are passed by value, are allocated on the stack, and never need to be collected by the garbage collector, really open up the doors for small, lightweight classes and comes in very handy when designing mathematical classes with very little overhead. Value types are also built into the framework and the runtime has an intimate knowledge of value types; much much more than syntax eye candy.

I could go on with the delegate/event system, or a unified threading model, or output parameters, or...but I don't want to make this a how-far-can-you-piss contest. I don't mean to slam my old language Java at all. What I am saying is that Microsoft carefully observed Java, watched where it succeeded and what problems it encountered, then created a language with Java's strenghts, minus its weaknesses. After all, with Java's dominance in the 90s, they had several years to get it right, and fortunately for the Windows development world, they did.

Re:Word

[Chris Mattern]

> For Microsoft, .NET is a strategy, a marketing phrase, a programming framework,
> a set of languages and tools.

It's a floor wax! It's a dessert topping!

Chris mattern

audience

[confusion]

I haven't read the book, but it seems to me that, in the case of Best Buy, the company is not selling to "grandma". They're selling the top of the line systems to the clueless geeks (clueful ones would get a better deal online). The fact is that the "speeds and feeds" are what sell many on a more expensive computer.

In many areas, this is a big driver for convergance of different technologies - to be able to provide a "system" that does "something", not pieces that have to be put together. It's true that PCs have very tech centric marketing, but it is quite a bit better than it used to be - now you go out and buy a computer system with keyboard, mouse, printer, camera, monitor, etc etc. That used to not be the case, so I think there has been some level of improvement.

Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/

Re:audience

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been in Best Buy lately? The large majority of the systems they are selling are not top of the line, they are low end / low cost systems for families on a budget -- or Grandma's on a fixed income.

And most of those family buyers don't have any real understanding of what all the buzz words mean. Though, many have heard enough to compare the metrics (3GHz is better than 2.4GHz, 512MB is better than 256MB).

Re:audience

[Squalish]

The vast majority of [let's call them non-technical customers] want:

to read email
to browse the web
to use a word processor / spreadsheet
to burn/rip/download MP3's

None of these require a great processor, video card, memory, etc. None of these have major noticeable differences going from the bottom of the line, a 2.4ghz processor, to the top of the line, a 3.6ghz processor. (No, the ripping of a CD to a CPU-intensive encoder going from 40 minutes to 1 hour does NOT change the use of a computer significantly)

The "non-technical user" hasn't noticed a major improvement in hardware performance in years.

IF they understood this, and were educated enough to know exactly how the buzzwords would effect them (essentially, nil in terms of their use of the computer) the entire structure of the market would change, old components wouldn't ramp down in price so quickly, etc.

That said, "family buyers," are the cattle that have allowed Moore's Law powered components to decrease in prices though economies of scale to the point where people like me can afford them.

A major part of why these systems are specced is that gamers often help drive the purchases. Gamers who don't understand hardware enough to put together their own computer, but can compare numbers on labels, are a major factor these days. Geeks like me may cringe at the thought, but often they end up being the customers of the systems with $500 in the processor, $200 in the case, and $50 each in the memory + video card. "CS still isn't fast enough!" they say, and so they're planning on a 4ghz computer as soon as they find it on the shelves.

Re:audience

[Squalish]

To respond to my parent post: Computers as a whole have been moving down in price, but the average customer still spends far more than he needs to. My original point was of the 640k variety: A system with a processor less than half the speed of the lowest tier sold now isn't going to make a major difference for J random technophobe's applications.

Cringely made a similar point a month ago when he wrote about the niche that ye-old-dead-techbubble-idea, internet appliances, could fill: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041202. html

Software is inexcusably bad as released.

[crovira]

The quality of software is appaling. The quality of OS is marginally better (or worse depending on what you use.)

The reason for this is very simple but to fix it requires people to open their eyes.

It starts with computers being deaf, dumb and blind, gets worse with how we think of information modeling (ask your DBA to model a wall. Its a simple and straight forward request. Bricks & mortar do NOT make a wall.) then we compound this with security that isn't in the least bit secure and it absolutely fall down from there.

Put on the THINK! sign people.

Re:Software is inexcusably bad as released.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what's your solution?

Re:Software is inexcusably bad as released.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know OpenBSD takes bugs seriously. So much that they kick buggy shit like ethereal out of their ports tree, and rewrite stuff at the drop of a hat when that's the only way to fix something.
Not all projects are as dedicated, but hey at least somebody's doing it.

Re:Software is inexcusably bad as released.

[zangdesign]

ask your DBA to model a wall

It would be helpful if you would define what a "wall" is before turning it over to the DBA to work out the details of modeling aforementioned wall.

Re:Software is inexcusably bad as released.

[killjoe]

It's all about expectations my friend. Let me illustrate.

A while back I bought a cheapo RCA TV from target. After a couple of months the TV started making a high pitched noise. My wife could not hear it but made me insane. I took the TV back to target. They gave me a new TV. Not just a new TV but a better one since that model had been upgraded.

Try doing that with software. I dare you.

Your typical bubba has been conditioned to accept that software is crappy. Everybody at work just shrugs their shoulders when windows crashes or the IT dept asks them to reboot and try again. We all know windows just crashes sometimes.

You are correct, sir

[Anonymous Coward]

Five times at .NET's home page

advertising doesn't tell you anything anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when advertising would list the benefits of a product. Now all it has is a picture of the sky with a question "where do you want to go today?". Thanks a lot, that tells me nothing.

I was reading some back issues of Pc Magazine from the 80's, the ads told me as much as the articles. Ads would say "The new microsoft compiler has these features... that are better than the last version" I miss those type of ads.

Re:advertising doesn't tell you anything anymore

[TheGavster]

I've noticed this too. I was browsing some old issues of Popular Mechanics at my grandfather's, and the ads sometimes had as much information to them as the articles. Only an occasional ad that I see in modern issues of PopSci has even approached the level of those older advertisements, in telling you what the product is, what it does, and how it does it better, in a clear format without lots of marketing speak.

Re:advertising doesn't tell you anything anymore

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Well, there is a good deal of competition, so listing items is pretty pointless. It's a feature of a mature market. And in market maturity, those ads aren't talking to YOU; instead, they're talking to corporate execs in order to control the conversation that happens on golf courses, in bars, and occasionally in the board rooms. In effect, it panders to the lowest common denominator of the class that is highly insulated from the daily reality of work. And the mark of that denominator is branding. After all, no one ever got fired for buying IBM, right?

.NET

[jericho4.0]

It's nice to see someone (Joel Spolsky) rip into .NET as it deserves. I've never worked with .NET or C#, and I understand it has some things going for it (the language itself and the IDE are often mentioned), but I've never been able to grasp what .NET actually _was_.

Re:.NET

[Timesprout]

It's nice to see someone (jericho4.0) rip into something they dont understand in the best slashdot 'I don't know it, have not used it, don't get it and it comes from MS so it must suck' tradition, as it does not deserve. Your ignorance becomes you. Wall building seems to have been beyond you jericho so its hardly surprising you are strugging with a sophisticated development framework.

Re:.NET

[rainmayun]

It's nice to see someone (Joel Spolsky) rip into .NET as it deserves. I've never worked with .NET or C#, and I understand it has some things going for it (the language itself and the IDE are often mentioned), but I've never been able to grasp what .NET actually _was_.

If you've never worked with it, and don't grasp it, what qualifies you to judge it as deserving of being ripped up?

Re:.NET

[Frostalicious]

.Net is a failed marketing campaign. That's it. It no longer makes sense to speak of ".Net" without some other qualifier. You can talk about:

Visual Basic.Net. A programming language.
Visual Studio Net. An IDE.
.Net Framework. A platform.

These were supposed to be part of a larger ".Net" product strategy, however the term ".Net" was so ill defined that the term became meaningless. So only use that term when referring to a specific product as above.

Sure, Joel looks silly to those who do odd things.

[Anonymous Coward]

rather than having three hundred asp/php pages with cut-and-copy disease

The problem doesn't lie in PHP, per se, but in the "cut-and-copy" you describe. It's relatively easy to develop a dynamic web (page|site|service) with only a handful of PHP pages, all easily maintanable. Look at the immense number of dumbed-down blogs, shopping sites and whatnot for simple examples of small-scale applications. For a nominal fee (and sometimes for free), you can develop a full-fledged company site with a few clicks and a pointer to your product database.

ASP.NET doesn't introduce anything new, unless you've only used ASP and have since upgraded to (pre-existing) functionality that "new" in ASP.NET.

Security Software

[maxeypad]

Security software marketed at big businesses is the absolute worst. Risk management software, what the hell is that? Compliance tools?

Being the most advanced definitely isn't enough

[Jeff DeMaagd]

For one, does it work? Is it resilient from crashing or breakdowns? If it breaks, is it easy to fix? Is it easy to set up? Does it fill a basic need?

Rise and Fall of the Marketdroids

[Doc Ruby]

The problem is that consumers believe marketers' lies, which are cheaper to produce than a working product. High-tech is no different from any other industry (what do you know of that really works, the way high-tech "doesn't"?), except the cost difference between marketing lies and good products is extremely high, matched only by the their obvious difference in performance. While that NP-complete problem is intractable, the breakdown occurs when consumers react to discovery of the lies, when the product sucks, by switching liars. High-tech offers greater possibility for changing that, as the degree to which products actually work is increasing consumers' ability to filter the lies, and report the reality, through mass P2P communications by people with mutual interest in consuming quality, rather than producing profit.

Re:Rise and Fall of the Marketdroids

[doom]

Doc Ruby wrote:

High-tech is no different from any other industry (what do you know of that really works, the way high-tech "doesn't"?),

Is that a serious question?

Flashlights: Maglites were a great improvement over the competition back in the 90s, and the new led flashlights are a great improvement on maglights.

Pocket knives: Swiss Army knives pretty much kicked the ass of the junky knives you used to see around when I was a kid -- they offer a huge range of choice, and they all pretty much work as good or better than you'd expect. Their main competition seems to be the Leatherman line, which are also quite excellent, and offer a slightly different range of features.

Coffee makers: with very few exceptions I've encountered, home coffee making technology seems to be continually improving. I'm currently using a model with themos insulation built into the coffee pot that does a great job of preserving the coffee for a long period of time, compared to the older models. Similarly, home coffee grinders also seem to "just work".

Some forms of sports equipment, e.g. climbing equipment, works tremendously well, particularly the camming gadgets that started to come out in the 80s. (This is in contrast to downhill ski technology, which as far as I can tell is a bullshit market with phony -- or nearly phony -- innovations every year. Though on the other hand, it's not like the skis don't work well as skis, and there have been some real improvements in ski bindings).

I might list any number of commodities -- if you buy a box of salt, it really and truly is salt, and acts just like you expect it to -- those count as low tech, don't they?

Now on the other hand, there's are many pieces of consumer technology that are sold in spite of a positive absence of anything resembling quality -- SUVs come to mind, which people persist in thinking are "safer" though they're definitely not -- but there are also many examples where quality has won out in the marketplace.

Re:Rise and Fall of the Marketdroids

[Hast]

You may want to look a bit closer on those examples you posted.

Victorinox (the original Swiss army knife maker) was founded in late 1884, hardly what I'd call a recent invention.

Coffemakers, it's my (and all other serious coffe drinkers that I've met) experience that the _best_ coffee is made with either Fresh press (Freedom press ;-) or perculator. Both of these are old inventions. Now you may think that the "King of Coffee" drip makers are really good, but that's mainly marketing. (They are good, but not as good as low tech makers mentioned above.) Grinders are pretty nice nowadays, but I don't think that putting an electric motor on a manual grinder all that big a invention.

LED flashlights are neat though. Particularly since they can be hand powered and still be useable. (Due to low energy consumption.) So this one I'll agree on.

Genrally I'll go with the grandparant and agree that most industries today are led by marketing and not content. Even in table-salt "tech" I have seen a lot of new sea salts with different flavours added and sold at a premium.

Re:Rise and Fall of the Marketdroids

[LaCosaNostradamus]

The problem is that consumers believe marketers' lies, which are cheaper to produce than a working product.

Bless you, Sir. Your statement is sig material. I've been prattling around this topic for two postings, but you summed it up here quite well.

Re:Rise and Fall of the Marketdroids

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Not to nitpick, but when I see someone grab a flashlight, over 90% of the time it's a plastic version of the 2xD-cell, incandescent-bulb flashlight that our fathers used. Any fool can make a better flashlight ... at a greater purchase price. If you want to impress me about how high-tech has supplied a benefit to something like a flashlight, please point out how it has been brought to the masses in an affordable fashion.

Re:Rise and Fall of the Marketdroids

[Doc Ruby]

Thanks for the blessing - a better Christmas present than some cheap toy ;). Apropos to my post, put my statement in your .sig, linked to a reviews website. I like Epinions.com, but I'm sure there are better ones.

teachers' responsibility

[czaby]

When I give lectures about highly technical topics like J2EE, half of my presentation is writing buzzwords to the whiteboard and explaining what it actually means. Most of the time I finish with: "See, this is really trivial. It was made to LOOK complicated, because the business needs it. But you are technical experts, you should know how simple it is."

Re:teachers' responsibility

[Juanvaldes]

The law of technology topics as my professor used to say. The more complicated sounding the name the simpler the idea is. The simpler it sounds the more complicated it really is.

The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[zymano]

Has got to be REAL superfast broadband.

The cable companies CAN'T and WONT deliver it. I am talking about higher than 100 megabits/sec. .

Imagine a billion HDTV channels and no more installing operating systems.

No more needing to even buy a computer because of distributed networking. You will buy supercomputer time for tough projects.

All this will never occur because municipal fiber to the curb has been killed by stupids in government and their cronies in the private markets.

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, that's cute. He thinks he came up with a clever, new idea. The thin client vision of the world that both Sun and Oracle have had has been around since 1995, and has its roots in the 1960 terminal computers and early ARPANET.

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[cunniff]

This is a great vision, but, as Joel points out at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html , there are quite a few applications where latency matters, not bandwidth (scroll down about 4/5 of the way, where he says, "Here are a few examples of things you can't really do well in a web application").

Even if you got all of the other latency limitations out of the way, you're left with speed-of-light delays. Imagine a server on the other side of the Earth; it's 20000 km away. That's a 13 ms round-trip, which limits interactivity to 8 Hz, which is way below the threshold considered "interactive" (which is around 20 Hz).

What this means is that those operations which are latency-sensitive need to live on the client, or very close (on-LAN, most likely, or, perhaps, at a municipal level), which still means substantial local computing power.

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[ThosLives]

I have made a funny observation. Granted, NTSC (and similar) don't have great pixel resolution or anything, but analog is a much more efficient use of a medium than digital. You can cram a LOT more information in analog bandwidth than in digital. I'm not up on the mathematics behind this, but you can think of it this way: say you want to send the number '500' across a medium. You can send an analog signal for time, say, t that is some level above a reference that indicates 500 (say, 500 mV). To send that digitally, you have to send at least 9 bits. If the minimum time to sample some voltage value is t, the analog packing there is more than 9 times information-dense than digital.

Sure, digital has its advantages for reproducible exactness, and analog hardware has a more difficult time coping with noise, but digital loses out every time to analog in information density. After all, what's the "bit rate" for analog television anyway? It's a meaningless comparison, mostly because there's no way (of which I'm aware) to quantify just how much "information" is in an instant of an analog phenomenon.

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[Anonymous Coward]

sending 500 mV across a medium means that nothing else can be sent across that medium in time t.
What does that mean? well, pretending the medium has a range of 1 to 1024 mV. digitally, we could place 10 bits of data in this same range. 1mv = 0000000001, 2mv = 000000010, etc all the way up to 1111111111 at 1024 mv.
In this instance, digital appears to be more dense than analog.

just my 2 AC cents

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[iabervon]

Processor time, which is what supercomputer time would be useful for, is completely trivial these days. You can order a processor that's completely sufficient for all people's non-gaming needs for $28.64 (quantity of 1) from digikey. You need more elaborate chips to manage your network connection than you do to run your software.

The important features of a computer these days are fixed storage you control, places to plug in devices, removable media, display, and a small amount of low-latency processor power. A network-accessed supercomputer is completely useless and an operating system is necessary.

Personally, I think there is going to be a market for network-attached storage for consumers (there's a computer in every room of the house. Wouldn't you like them to all share the same document storage?). But everything else sensibly belongs in the computer.

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he wished he was Tom Selleck in the AT&T commercials in the early '90s.

Do you get 100 megabits/sec REAL superfast broadband? You Will!

A billion HDTV channels and no more installing operating systems? You will!

No more needing to even buy a computer because of distributed networking. Buy supercomputer time for tough projects. You will!

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that's about 80Hz not 8.

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[shis-ka-bob]

So read up on Shannon's information theory. The information content of both digital and analog are well understood by advanced EE's (and/or physicists and mathameticians). Not surprisingly, you can change between digital and analog signals without loss of information.

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[TheGavster]

I have 50 channels of low-def right now. They all suck, and I'm not talking image quality (though also mediocre). I could have 1000, but I have a feeling that the reason the programming on the 50 channel I already have is that there really isn't enough to say to fill them.

Your software company would be glad to lease you storage space and applications served remotely. That way, whenever they need a new yacht, they just charge you more. You'd leave for another supplier, except that they own your data, and even if you get it back from them its locked in a proprietary format illegal for anyone but them to write a parser for. You want a computer that you own, running an operating system and applications that you hold an eternal license to, storing data on mass storage devices that you own, in the formats that you specify.

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[sgt101]

Well, and the laws of economics as they are currently understood.

Look, what you are asking for is not just connectivity, its service. You want hdtv? 4MBs & Mpeg4 baby, that will bring a hdtv stream to your very tv, oh yes.

But what you want is all the HDTV, all the time, in every language and so on. It's a big challenge in terms of servers, in terms of discovery and distribution, in terms of copyright. These are the true issues at the moment, as well as the DSLAMS to manage the distribution of bandwidth at a local level in a cost effective way.

- who is going to pay for the investment in kit?
- who is going to pay for the maintenance of the kit?
- who is going to pay for the optics in the ducts?
- who is going to dig the f* ducts?
- who is going to pay for the kit to parlay it into the Ethernet in your house?
- what are we going to pipe it round your house with?
- who do you ring when it don't work? The TV company, the film company? The telco?

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[ThosLives]

Ok, where I said "information dense" I should have said "amount of information per unit time"; The amount of information per unit time appears to be higher with analog than for digital. I know that you can use either digital or analog without losing information, but I couldn't remember from Shannon's theory if there was anything about the rates of information transfer (I know it has stuff about theoretical limits based on channel capacity and stuff like that - but I couldn't recall if that was for only digital or both analog and digital).

So, I went to Bell Labs (now Lucent) and looked it up. I perused it briefly, but want to look at it more to understand just what they mean by 'entropy' of a message (especially in the transmission of continuous data and how you measure how much 'information' is in a bit of continuous data). Fun stuff for a rainy day!

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[cunniff]

Oops - typo - 40,000 km roundtrip / 300,000 km/s = .133 seconds = 130 ms (not 13, as I typed). Point still stands (8 Hz interactivity rate).

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing .

[LaCosaNostradamus]

The problem with "50 channels and nothing on" is the same problem we've have for much of CATV's life. The problem revolves around community access (more precisely, the utter lack of it).

The barrier for entry on the Internet is very low. Hence, we have an astounding number of "channels", and very much is going on indeed.

The barrier for entry for video really isn't that much higher. People can do video production from a PC with a webcam. And you will note that there is plenty of this going on. But it's not happening with delivered video streams.

This is so since the delivery of video on the CATV model is elitist and hence quite restricted. It's not open to the public, by the industry's choice. And that's why we have such a pathetic set of choices in CATV and its online counterparts.

On the basis of consumer choice alone, CATV may be given a run for its money within the next 20 years. It may be forced to merge with Internet access entirely in order to compete. In fact, merging may give the CATV industry all the restrictions it presently practices, leaving us kinda-sorta back in the same boat of having essentially no community television.

Maybe you should check out Zope one day?

[PaulBu]

Or something else... really...

To say that the current version of the Company X product is so much better than the previous version of the _same company's_ product does not really endorse _either_ version.

Paul B.

What's wrong with marketing...

[__aaclcg7560]

...three words: Reality Distortion Field.

Customers Don't Buy Technology

[reallocate]

People aren't interested in "better" technology for its own sake. (And, "better" is usually a matter of debate. Just because techies think something is better, why should the rest of us agree? Or care?)

People buy "stuff" that that we can use to do whatever it is that we want to, preferably without breaking a sweat or needing to read a book first. Technical superiority, by itself, isn't much of a sales pitch. Why should I buy something that is "superior" if I know I won't use that "superiority"?

Techies like to say things like "Windows is unusable" (when most of the world uses it) or "corporations put profit above technology" (gee, do you think?). Just shows why a lot of them get along better with hardware than with people.

Re:Customers Don't Buy Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

you are out of touch with reality and the modern consumer.

if it is new they want it, regardless of whether itis better, worse or the same. they want it. that goes for technology and every other single industry.

Re:Customers Don't Buy Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

and you are retarded. consumers buy newer stuff because they perceive "newer" == "better", regardless of whether it actually is or not.

Put on the DUH hat people!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's comments like the parent that annoy the hell out of me.

If you know a solution, state it. If you know what the problem is, specifically, state it.

Saying theres a huge problem and waving your hands about just gets you ignored like all the other crazy whiners out there.

and the think hat? what is this 1976? yes I know that date has no relevance, neither does your stupid post.

Something gone wrong in Redmond?

[Spy der Mann]

From the linked article:
...and I think it proves that something has gone very, very wrong in Redmond.

Yeah, it's called Microsoft. :)

Subscription Model

[grahamsz]

How long before people start subscribing to "computers"?

Why not have a reasonably fast system, all the software you need, broadband and tech support for "one low monthly fee". Whenever it gets obsolete someone appears and moves everything to a more recent system.

We "buy" cellphones that way, many people lease cars that way... sure it wont be popular here, but it'd work for most people.

Re:Subscription Model

[mabu]

I think Dell or Gateway had something like this going a few years back. You could trade your computer in for a more powerful one. Obviously it didn't pan out because they dropped the scheme.

Most software these days is pseudo-subscription based. Some are more obvious about it, such as the Norton products which give you X amount of virus definition file updates before they try to mafia-squeeze money from you. Others are more insideous like Quickbooks charging their customers an arm and a leg for a stupid 10k annual tax table.. which I consider to be almost criminal.

Other companies like Oracle, don't actually sell their software. You purchase a "support plan" which includes the software. All the companies are constantly devising ways to leverage their mediocre products to get more money from consumers.

Re:Subscription Model

[TrollBridge]

"Other companies like Oracle, don't actually sell their software. You purchase a "support plan" which includes the software. All the companies are constantly devising ways to leverage their mediocre products to get more money from consumers."

Sounds familiar.

Re:Subscription Model

[killjoe]

You can already lease them.

Re:Subscription Model

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Would YOU want to start a computer-subscription company? Let's speculate freely.

Here, start one up. Charge $50/mo. For that fee, you have to provide DSL-connection speeds, the latest processor (since the user will at least want to run the latest game, which requires the fastest machine), and so on.

Sure, you get $600/yr off each user. Your networking charges will eat at least 1/3rd of that. Your equipment support costs (maintenance, upgrades) will eat another 1/3rd. That leaves you $200/yr from each customer for overhead costs, licensing (all those apps and games aren't free) and your profit.

And, oh yeah, you will have several competitors within 12 months offering the same service at $39.99/mo. Time to start cutting prices. Time to start offering deep discounts and rebates. Time to start cutting your own throat.

I figure that the next thing you'll know, your little company will be in bankruptcy court with at least half of your competitors, while the biggest are simply bought out or undergo mergers. The service will be scaled back, and the customers will peter off until they are finally shipped AOL CDs and wished a merry "good luck" with their new provider.

The point here is that the margins on such things are too small, since the computer industry produces tiny margins at the retail outlets to begin with. Inventory is a nightmare in computer retail, since it drops in price so quickly. So, why would you start a business that is "on the hook" for always buying equipment when it's at its most expensive point?

The modern user can go to a local computer shop in even a modest town, find a computer for $600, buy a couple of games for $100, hook it up to the Internet for a marginal cost (since they generally will have cable TV already). It's tough to compete with that easy purchase with just "service". Your service would have to be comprehensive ... but that means licensing costs, which YOU (the provider) pay for.

Re:Sure, Joel looks silly to those who do odd thin

[Zebra_X]

ASP.NET doesn't introduce anything new, unless you've only used ASP and have since upgraded to (pre-existing) functionality that "new" in ASP.NET.

Not true at all. Each "page" is a class and is treated as such in it's implementation from a functional perspective.

A UI developer can make changes to the controls, with out wortying about breaking some server script. In addition it is possible to completely remove SQL code from the presentation tier, this is not possible with out a great deal of engineering and com components with traditional ASP.

ASP.NET simplifies state management on three levels, application, session, and page as well. Page state is something that has traditionally needed to be built by the developer, but this is no longer the case in .NET. Each control on a page manages it's state via the view state.

Also validation for all forms is simple and easy to implement, taking a fraction of the time to complete, and it's twice as robust (it runs client side, and server side depending on what your browser will support)

At the moment, I'd be hard pressed to find another technology platform for web development that is as flexible as .NET.

The revolution was really for the developer - not so much from a product perspective. Have a look at how easy it is to incorporate 3rd party components into web applications. Provided the 3rd party provided designed their component well, it usually "just works". That's more than I can say for similar development platforms.

I've been complaining about this for years

[HarveyBirdman]

OK, I've been whining in ranting outburts, but they are highly articulate outbursts.

Every big announcement in the tech field for years now has been one limp-dicked anticlimax after another. Oooo! A new palm top PC running a ShitpileOS (Windows) variant that never quite does anything in particular very well. Oooo! Another all in one home entertainment system that's overpriced and has to be completely replaced if one part of it wears out. Piles of new tech gadgets constructed from lowest common denominator components. $8000 televisions. Cell phones with games worthy of, oh, the Sega Master System, at best. Seventeen more first person shooters that require $3000 worth of PC upgrades.

It's all just so boring and bland. IMHO, the only neat devices to come out in the past few years are the DVRs (Tivo/Replays/etc) because they really made a common task (watching TeeVee) vastly more efficient, and those tiny USB flash drives which have made shuttling a CD's worth of data quick and easy and tiny. Oh, and I like my iPod. Those are cool.

What I'd like to see is some existing technologies improved. Stop putting cameras and video games into cell phones, for example, and make the system work better. I should not be having dropped calls in a major metropolitan area at this point.

And, oh yean, my usual call for a functional sexbot. I'm telling ya, they will make their inventor $billions. If you happen to be working on one, hire me. I'm one of the best general digital and FPGA hardware designers you could hope for. I'm really bored in my current job. I want a piece of that sexbot action.

Re:I've been complaining about this for years

[91degrees]

I know what you mean. In the 80's and early 90's there was some great stuff happening. Computers, then better computers (not just faster, but decent sound and graphics), new mobile phone technology, more and more portable devices, and those funky shiney digital music discs.

Now we just seem to be getting software. The PC as a games machine. The PC as a music player. the PC as a "home entertainment system". The internet - which the tech industry seems to be trying to convert to TV.

Oh, and your sexbot - what I think we need is internet sex. With a portable version. I need something for the daily commute.

Re:I've been complaining about this for years

[trs9000]

I want a piece of that sexbot action.

he's saying what we're all thinking!

Re:I've been complaining about this for years

[HarveyBirdman]

Oh, and your sexbot - what I think we need is internet sex. With a portable version. I need something for the daily commute.

Oh, God, just what we need! As if cell phones and DVD players were not enough distraction.

"Sorry, officer. I didn't expect the second orgasm, and so I negelected to signal my lane change."

Re:I've been complaining about this for years

[Spunk]

Nobody expects the second orgasm!

Re:I've been complaining about this for years

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Yeah, I've gotta add my 2c to this. What do you call an $8000 television? Answer: WORTHLESS. You can't (note: you SHOULD NOT) be able to afford such a thing. Other than the wealthy, what absolutely dumb motherfucker would buy a TV for the price of FOUR GOOD USED CARS?

I went into one of these shyster shops the other day, and there was this 50+ inch flatpanel TV for sale. Price? TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. I was laughing openly and heartily about it, right in front of the sales-pukes. What working-class moron pays 10 grand for a TV, and how many sales do you expect such that it actually justifies having this monstrous thing dominating the sales floor?

I've seen families struggling to pay their heating bills, but they have a huge flatpanel TV in their living rooms, paying $100/mo on the fucking thing. At least with a tube TV, you can get some heat out of the thing.

not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know its the marketing departments that dream up many of these crap products. When they are all done with the plan and have made the press release, then they visit engineering. Then the engineer says "oh crap that is technically impossible." Then your fired because your not a "team" player.

Whoops, all the engineers are outsourced now. We have marketech shell companies now.

Options are expensed now with the change in the US laws. Expect tech stock market to implode in 2005.

If the technical documentation does not have a glossary just throw it away. Maybe web sites need a glossary of terms also.

Its so true when you've seen it!

In the 'ol days

[mabu]

It used to be when a publisher released a product, it was bug-free and of good quality. Nowadays, and this doesn't apply specifically to games -- the same can be said for movies, music and all other "software", you're taking your chances when you purchase something. At least half the products on the market aren't worthy and are just fluff, and the other half are un-original and derivative. And products don't stand on their own any more... they're part of a larger franchised marketing and merchandising plan designed to squeeze as much money from you as possible.

The most notable examples are the hoards of terminally-boring FPS games... Wow, it's just like the last 20 games except now you can sit in a turret or your shots damage texture maps.. oooh. Suckers. The same thing with movies... the people out there who fell for the Matrix Trilogy-of-taking-money-from-suckers. Stop being sheep. Stop buying this crap. Stop the cycle of mediocre content that is 100% marketing-driven with no substance.

This is why I don't buy or play console games. If I buy a computer game, it will be a year or more after it's already been out and the hype has dissipated to the point where its value shines through. I'm not going to be these corporations' little consumer monkey, and I urge others to do the same.

Re:In the 'ol days

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be when a publisher released a product, it was bug-free and of good quality.

That is just flat out wrong. Advertising and consumer culture is much more pervasive now than in the past, but products in the past have been dangerous or worthless at least at the rate they are now. The only real change for the worse that I can think of is that products are not built to last on any scale.

Re:In the 'ol days

[rainmayun]

It used to be when a publisher released a product, it was bug-free and of good quality. Nowadays, and this doesn't apply specifically to games -- the same can be said for movies, music and all other "software", you're taking your chances when you purchase something. At least half the products on the market aren't worthy and are just fluff, and the other half are un-original and derivative. And products don't stand on their own any more... they're part of a larger franchised marketing and merchandising plan designed to squeeze as much money from you as possible.

The most notable examples are the hoards of terminally-boring FPS games... Wow, it's just like the last 20 games except now you can sit in a turret or your shots damage texture maps.. oooh.

Your memory is a bit rosy, or perhaps you aren't old enough to remember the Pac-Man product tie-ins (cereal , clothes, etc.) sequels (Ms Pac-Man, Baby Pac-Man, etc.) and clones (Mousetrap, etc.) ? And let's not even talk about movies based on Space Invaders....

Re:In the 'ol days

[mabu]

That is just flat out wrong. Advertising and consumer culture is much more pervasive now than in the past, but products in the past have been dangerous or worthless at least at the rate they are now.

You're obviously much younger than I if you believe that.

In fact, in the 80s there was a prominent software company that ran a promotion, "Find a bug, win a bug" - giving away VWs to anyone who could find a legitimate bug in their product. In the early days of computing, there was a much higher quality and stability to products.

Re:In the 'ol days

[Anonymous Coward]

I got the impression from your post that you were not just talking about software, but about consumer goods in general.

In the specific case of software I agree that software is less robust than it was formerly. Although demand for features and ease of use (consumer culture) do increase the bug rate, to a large extent there is also the fact that software is much more complex now. Any program with 20m lines of code is going to have more bugs than one with 400k - probably more on average per line. No company can promise bug free software at this point, because no company could produce bug free software. Consumerism just means that even if it could be produced it would not necessarily be a winner in the market.

Not Applicable

[ravenspear]

That's not marketing, it's brainwashing.

Next big thing?

[Himring]

We all know the next big thing in technology is Internets!...

Re:When did slishdot book reviews jump the shark?

[miller701]

I read it like a movie trailer In a world where: When instead of selling distinct products ... When even software developers don't have ... This Fall, Miramax pictures presents "It's not about the technology" Starring the 3 time Oscar winner ...

I thought it was SOAP

[oneiros27]

I thought .NET was supposed to be language agnostic -- ie, it was SOAP. [although, document/literal, as opposed to early SOAP that was rpc/encoded]

I wasted way too much time before I found a decent explaination of the different SOAP encoding styles

Who is the target audience for this book?

[Anonymous Coward]

With a price tag of $70 I'm not sure who the author expects to read this book.

Re:Who is the target audience for this book?

[MadAnthony02]

people with library cards

Sell the sizzle, not the steak

[fuzzy12345]

That's how it has always been in marketing. How do you get someone with a perfectly good set of golf clubs, and for whom the best way to improve his game is to play more, to buy new clubs? TITANIUM!

Why don't marketers care whether grandma can decode "P4 3.0 GHz 256 DDR 40.0 GB DVD/CD-RW"? Because ALL the profit in this low margin business is from people who CAN decode it.

PC specs

[HarveyBirdman]

Hence grandmas in Best Buy staring at the computer described as "P4 3.0 GHz 256 DDR 40.0 GB DVD/CD-RW" when all she wants to know is whether she can check email and view photos of the grandkids.

I hear that at work all day and it drives me nuts. Not that I don't look at specs when I buy a computer, but I have learned never to ask about anyone else's new computer because you get the five minute laundry list of numbers that have no real importance. Do I really need to know if your new Duh-ell PC has an 80G or 100G hard drive? PC specs have replaced dick size and engine displacement as bragging fodder or something.

I overheard the guy in the office next to me last year spend hours on the phone shaving costs of his new PC. $10 here. $5 there. He must have spent 20 hours to save $100. He drives a $45,000 car. Nobody places value on their time. He finally bought the thing and announced it to the bay the next day. Absentmindedly, I asked what kind... D'oh! Nine hours later I could have reverse engineered a schematic of the motherboard based on what this guy told us.

Re:PC specs

[coyote_oww]

Amen. Amen. Amen.

My last computer purchase was a Sony Vaio, from Best Buy. I use it daily, but I don't know or care what the processor speed is - 2Ghz+, I think. But I just don't care anymore.

I make $65K per year, I'm single. I owe the bank $100K for the house, no car loan, no credit card debt. I no expensive vices. Money is not really a problem for me - I have enough for the things I want to do.

What I don't have enough of is time. I'm not going to waste it dealing with buggy hand built computers, or reading up on the latest video hardware. That was me 10 years ago, but my interests have changed. Computers just don't facinate me anymore. I have other interests (including actually USING the computer) that are more compelling than trading hundreds of hours of my time to save a few bucks here and there on a computer. I don't care if I could build one and save $150. My free time is worth at least $50 an hour to me, and I it would take at least 3 hour for the video card alone - to read through the reviews, compare prices, purchase, install hardware, install drivers, update drivers, etc. Not to mention the pain of dealing with some software not being compatible with cutting edge parts...

Not for me any more! Leave that to high school and college students who are short on cash, but long on free time and enthusism. And of course, short on female companionship... (couldn't resist).

Re:PC specs

[crabpeople]

"Not that I don't look at specs when I buy a computer, but I have learned never to ask about anyone else's new computer because you get the five minute laundry list of numbers that have no real importance."

wow. i would love to have serious technical conversations about PC's where i work. Debating nvidia vs ati and their deviance of 3FPS or sata vs SCSI. that would be sweet. What do I get when I ask people at work about their PC?

"Oh its black and shiney. it has the internet and a picture of a kitten on the screen too!"

id rather have some learned discussions to base future purchasing decisions on than someone who needs me to explain to them what they jsut paid 3k for.
On the other side of the coin, i could not care in the slightest about what my exhaust manifold is made out of.

A Dollar For IT is a Dollar Less Profit

[was_ms_now_linux]

In less complex situations, the phenomena he describes would be easier to detect and label and guard against. Unfortunately, the IT industry has its own media and does a great job of minimizing those that question blank-check budgets for IT systems. But, the fact remains that a dollar spent on each version upgrade of an IT system or platform is simply one dollar less profit for that period. Some corps are wising up and slashing costs by using Linux and other low-cost platform alternatives.

Re:A Dollar For IT is a Dollar Less Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

The fallacy of your post is one of the biggest problems I face in I.T.

I.T. is not just an expense.

Spending $10,000 on System XYZ to replace System ABC might can save my company $15,000 inside a relevant timeframe; the critical, most difficult, and most frustrating part of my job is quantifying the time of particular departments and employees when even the managers and owners cannot do so.

Re:A Dollar For IT is a Dollar Less Profit

[was_ms_now_linux]

That is correct and I agree with that. So long as the cost-benefit analysis is confined to estimation of expense displacement and/or reduction, the analysis of the proposed IT investment is probably valid - provided the numbers aren't completely off-base. The problem comes when the managers are sold on the vision and implication that the investment will have some indirect magical effect on Revenue. Unless the system is directly related to marketing, it will just be another cost - kind of like an IT Systems Tax.

Re:A Dollar For IT is a Dollar Less Profit

[sgt101]

Look, a business case is a business case is a business case.

Either you can make a return or you can't. Risk (will it work, will it have the benefit you claim) can be factored in).

But your problem is that no one, no one in the world, will invest $10K for a projected $15K save over one, two or three years.

Re:A Dollar For IT is a Dollar Less Profit

[was_ms_now_linux]

You're right, it's got to be a bigger savings than that. Alos, alot of times the analysis involves consideration of whether that money spent is going off to a far away place or if it will be recycled in the local economy in the form of wages spent on that company's own product or service - or others in the community. The first wave of PC's and the initial implmentation of web-based brochures and forms are solid examples of savings that cannot be ignored. But the subsequent releases seem to be far less compelling - and generally represent a net cash drain on the "investing" company.

Sentence in the Title

[Euphonious Coward]

I have a simple rule: never touch a book whose title is a full sentence.

It's not obvious why it works so well. My working hypothesis is this: The writer had a message so important that even people who don't touch the book should get it. Where to put it? Cram it into the title. The problem is, if it fits in the title, it doesn't need a book, does it? Furthermore, anybody who's that sure his idea is so important is probably wrong about a lot else. Even if the book says more than the title, we have been given a good reason to distrust it before we open it.

Re:Sentence in the Title

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're the one that moved my cheese!

From the marketers standpoint

[Lord_Dweomer]

As someone in marketing/advertising, I have to agree that I have seen few areas as hyped up as the tech industry in terms of their marketing.

Frankly, its disgusting at times because they hurt the credibility of the entire industry (not that we had much with the /. crowd to begin with).

I try to do my part by not misleading people with what I market as I understand that an informed customer that you treat with respect will be a repeat customer who will spread the good word about you. I also inform people of when deceptive marketing/advertising is used and explain why it is bad and meaningless.

I think all of you are familiar with such lies as the "industry leader" claim or the "does more" claim. To those I have to ask "industry leader according to whom? The CEO fo the company? Because legally as long as you have the quote from someone, you are allowed to make that claim", and then I ask "does more? Does more WHAT?! Oh wait, legally that doesn't matter as long as you don't state it. It could ben "does more to line the CEOs wallets" and it would still be legal."

eWeek is a pure example of M$ B/S

[salmonz]

Has anyone ever read eWeek? Each article is Microsoft marketing mumbo jumbo with high-level words and makes me wonder "wtf are they talking about?". I don't see any IT manager or company executive talk like that. Btw, eWeek is sponsered by Microsoft, just look at the ads every 2nd page.

Re:eWeek is a pure example of M$ B/S

[randallpowell]

True. I worked at Dell and managers loved it. Most techs used Linux and wondered how managers got their jobs. Simple: ass kissing and being Republician.

Re:eWeek is a pure example of M$ B/S

[avanha]

You must not read it,
because almost every issue has several articles on new IE security holes, and all kinds of other unfavorable MS news. (Example: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1745091,00.as p) There's plenty of editorializing on OSS solutions, and decent reviews on new Linux distros. They do carry lots of MS advertising, but hey, since I won't pay for it, I'm glad somebody does.

Re:eWeek is a pure example of M$ B/S

[salmonz]

I do agree there are some good Linux articles. For the main part, reading the mag and flipping through page by page it always talks about the same old companies - Microsoft, Oracle, Symantec, IBM, blah blah blah... You read an article about how Microsoft's latest product improved productivity at Company X and then on the next page, you'll see an advertisement for that product. One of the editions I read actually had a cost analysis chart used as an article. The numbers go on showing the reader how much a solution from Microsoft cost and comparing it to an open-source solution and hyping the numbers on support costs by the tens of thousands of dollars. The online version of eWeek isn't that bad, but the print version is purely M$ mumbo B/S.

Actually, some do.

[khasim]

The owner of the company that I work at buys whatever the latest and coolest toys are.

He doesn't know how to work them or even why a cell phone that works in Europe won't always work in the US .... but he buys them. He buys them because they are cool and newer than what other people have so he can impress them. He is the type who will buy something because it is "superior".

Techies like to say things like "Windows is unusable" (when most of the world uses it) or "corporations put profit above technology" (gee, do you think?). Just shows why a lot of them get along better with hardware than with people.

I think the techies are pretty much like other people in that regard.

They have their point of view based upon their requirements / values and have trouble recognizing that other people have different requirements / values which result in different points of view.

People buy "stuff" that that we can use to do whatever it is that we want to, preferably without breaking a sweat or needing to read a book first.

But part of "Marketing" is making the consumer believe they have a "need" that they weren't aware of before, that can only be supplied by your product.

That "need" can be as esoteric as "I am a rebel against authority" to as mundane as "fast food you like".

Marketing high tech is different from most other markets because newer stuff is constantly being released. The perception of obsolescence is a key factor both in pushing the new stuff (don't be a loser, everyone else is faster) and in resistance to purchasing (why buy now when tomorrow it will be faster and cheaper).

I haven't read the book so I don't know if he covers that in depth.

Re:Actually, some do.

[reallocate]

1. "New" doesn't mean "superior". Your boss may buy something because he thinks those two words are synonymous, but they aren't.

2. Techies who argue "Windows is unusable" -- a palpable untruth --often do so simply to assert their own elitism. They just want us to know that they've defined themselves as too smart to use Windows. Conveniently, then, anyone who does use Windows is stupid. It's just a peacock display.

3. Techies who whine that businesses put profit before technology forget that profit spreads technology. If someone doesn't make and sell the stuff for a profit, how is it going to exist? Are all those good little techies going to devote their lives to making and giving away "stuff"?

4. People aren't mindless lab rats at the mercy of marketeers. Just because someone's ads try convince me I need something, why should I pay attention?

Upgrades Are Huge Part of Sales Revenue...

[was_ms_now_linux]

...so there is always going to be an elaborate multi-layered marketing campaign in place to ensure those oaying the cash aren't officially informed that it's just like a broker churning a customer's brokerage account. Some of the purchasing managers probably don't want to know as they are placed from corp to corp by the software makers in order to gain huge sales and keep the cost-cutters away. Think of Sgt Schultz saying "I Know Nothing". As long as any high-budget print or TV article doesn't explain the situation, it all works OK. Most managers don't bother to look at tech-oriented web-sites, just the ones bought by the advertisers, who shape the content. The level of complexity makes it all work. How could you fault someone for making a bankrupting spending decision when the decsision was so complex?

Once again, Slashdot blows it.

[ednopantz]

By adding a dubious, four year old dig at MS to the post, they manage to get the reviewer's actual comments ignored in favor of yet another M$ sux thread.
Good going guys!

Re:Once again, Slashdot blows it.

[was_ms_now_linux]

What is the 4 year old dig you are referring to?

Re:Once again, Slashdot blows it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The link to a 4 year old 'Joel on Software' rant about not knowing that .NET is (something abbout even devs not knowing what software they are buying). Follow the link and check the date at the top of the page.

Blame Ourselves!

[beaststwo]

We're the reason that bullshit sells. We're the ones that have to have the new toy, the new drug to try and satisfy our technology cravings.

When I was a kid, industry pulled the same crap on housewives by putting the same detergent in a packaging label "new and improved". Media outlets provide crap programming because that's what people will watch, which sells advertising. .Marketers have found equally fertile ground in technology.

If you want better products, quit buying the bullshit. Fewer dollars chasing the same products will weed out the bad. This is basic economics, people!

Re:DirecTV

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had my one set reciever for a couple of years. If I didn't already subscribe, I could get a 2 set or 4 set box for free. They only give free stuff to new customers. I think I'll have to cancel and resubscribe to get them to upgrade. Why else should they keep my hardware up to date as long as they continue to recieve their monthly fee anyway?

Re:Forgot Windows 1,2,3.0?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Windows XP is Windows NT 5.1! Windows had Windows NT and sold 16-bit Windows on top of DOS. You claim the grandparent is a zealot as an easy way to get credibility. Just because you're not rabidly anti-MS doesn't give you any more cred when criticizing them.

Too old to be assimilated.

[xtermin8]

Many posters must be too young to remember Win16. Apparently on /. you have to name Windows 1,2,3.0,3.1, WinNT 3.x, Windows 95 etc. and remind them that Windows XP is NT 5.x!

vague marketing...

[stygianguest]

from the article
"The fact that it is so broad, vague, and high level that it doesn't mean anything at all doesn't seem to be bothering anyone."

Maybe they have these marketing people working at the patent office as well?

Snake oil sales

[canuck57]

Hence grandmas in Best Buy staring at the computer described as "P4 3.0 GHz 256 DDR 40.0 GB DVD/CD-RW" when all she wants to know is whether she can check email and view photos of the grandkids. Marketers forget to empathize with the customers.

Tactics like this and others go back as far as I can remember. The only difference in the .com/2000 bubble was that a large group of business people believed it and spent billions on vaporware promises of profits with no fundamentally sound reason. I guess they don't teach MBAs how to calculate profits and do basic business marketing analysis first.

Grandma's in the mean time are looking at sub $500 solutions that does not require the maintenance of Microsoft Windows and with players like SAM's club are now selling alternatives. The real big kick will come from the Chinese as "toaster like" computers come in even cheaper and more reliable.

A very large part of this is due to businesses laying off the older experienced types and promoting those well past their level of experience and capability. We often think this is just a problem in I/T, but in actuality it is a problem in business in general as it is out with the baby boomer and in with the "never had to really work hard for a buck" generation.

This industry of computing is going to continue to evolve, it happened before with IBM and mainframes, now defunct Digital VAX, commodore PET, TRS-80, Apple, Apple II, Mac then PC. Next will be the standards based and open appliance.

Re:Snake oil sales

[LaCosaNostradamus]

I guess they don't teach MBAs how to calculate profits and do basic business marketing analysis first.

Oh, they do, it's just that calculating their stock options is such a priority that all other considerations become buried under the Great Whiteout. MBA education is a fine study in authorized hypergreed.

To be fair, I don't suppose that it's really the fault of MBA education. We simply have a culture of business scam that is so pervasive that everything an executive is taught can be twisted around into serving the ends of hypergreed. Every play the college game of "endless sexual innuendo"? No matter what someone says, play it into some sexual intent. It's rather easy to do. And that just demonstrates that no matter what the modern American corporate exec hears, he always seems to hear "this decreases the stock price" OR "this increases the stock price".

Unplug 'N' Prey

[Ranger]

No one quite knows the exact point when high-tech marketing went wrong.

I do. About two seconds after the words 'high-tech' and 'marketing' were merged in the acorn sized brain of a marketer. Due to their limited storage capacity any relevant technical information was squeezed out and replaced with marketing slogans. He/She/It thus completely divorced from reality was provided with the ability to create a marketing strategy unecumbered by facts.

Re:Unplug 'N' Prey

[Blakey Rat]

Insightful? What insight am I supposed to glean from this post, that the poster really hates marketing people? I don't get what the moderator is trying to tell me...

Re:Unplug 'N' Prey

[LaCosaNostradamus]

It is an insightful observation that people ditch technical information and replace it with uneducated bullshit.

Microsoft Muzak 4 Moozik

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think you've never had problems with Microsoft software on a computer in the past ten years, no references are going to help you understand anything. Just remember, when the nice person in the white coat gives you medication, take it. Okay?

Everyone knows what .NET is

[max born]

It's the next generation fully intergrated high tech state of the art advanced enterprise object commerce cyber solution, revolutionizing cross section functionality and empowering eBusiness to streamline its communications architecture across multiple platform independent management systems, thus enabling a complete competetive cutting edge on demand information infrastructure.

Now, what don't you understand?

Solutions Solutions

[ackthpt]

When looking at a brochure-style website dealing with services or products, count how many times the word "solution" is used. The higher the number, the more full of crap they are. The all-time record is held by ibm.com.

Worst of all was when I was driving along, listening to the car radio and heard something about 'meal solutions' I couldn't decide whether I was going to gag or laugh and nearly ran into another driver.

What with all the buzzwords and 'solutions' and what, I remember working on projects for a former employer and hearing at some point the names and hype the marketing people were coming up with for the things I was working on. I thought they were scoring some serious drugs down the other end of Pacific Avenue. I did think at the time that prospective customers wouldn't have a freaking clue what we were offering and that was a weakness, not a strength. If it's a go-faster-process then call it one, not some Actualized Dynamic Solution.

even today my head still spins ... no wonder so many companies went belly-up.

Proceeding from a false assumption:

[Moofie]

"They spend too much time with engineering, and like to tell customers how the new microprocessor has a much wider front-side bus, or how their new piece of software supports dual-core systems, without really telling the customer how that will improve business processes or increase efficiency."

That's because the overwhelming majority of PC "advances" WON'T improve business processes or increase efficiency. If the marketroids can't just drown the customer in buzzwords, they have nothing to sell.

Buzzword Bingo

[Scorchio]

All I need is a "leverage", then I can call house...

Possibly.

[khasim]

1. "New" doesn't mean "superior". Your boss may buy something because he thinks those two words are synonymous, but they aren't.

True. But in most cases, "superior" is also "new". Faster proc's are usually the newer ones.

2. Techies who argue "Windows is unusable" -- a palpable untruth --often do so simply to assert their own elitism. They just want us to know that they've defined themselves as too smart to use Windows. Conveniently, then, anyone who does use Windows is stupid. It's just a peacock display.

Pretty much. But those people do form a market of their own that a good marketing exec can exploit. #1 & #2 are just different sides of the same coin. For something to be "superior", something else must be "inferior". For something to be "unusable", something else is "usable".

3. Techies who whine that businesses put profit before technology forget that profit spreads technology. If someone doesn't make and sell the stuff for a profit, how is it going to exist? Are all those good little techies going to devote their lives to making and giving away "stuff"?

That's what is happening with the Open Source market. It all comes down to the individual's requirements / values. Linus gave his work away. He focuses on the technology instead of the profit. But code is a very special market because no matter how often you give it away, you always have it.

4. People aren't mindless lab rats at the mercy of marketeers. Just because someone's ads try convince me I need something, why should I pay attention?

No one is saying that you should.

But people do pay attention. Advertising works. Advertising is what gets people to pay $500 for a pair of sneakers.

Yet if you ask a person who just paid that why he paid that, he won't ever say that it was because of the advertising. He will say it's about style or that they are the best sneakers or some other rationalisation. But the reality is that it is because of the marketing campaign.

Why "solution" is so popular

[Infonaut]

High-tech companies like the term "solution" because of the limitations of the terms "product" and "service". No single product can ever be right for every customer. So customers are rightly suspicious of a single product that purports to solve all problems. A service implies that you simply pay money to a company on a continual basis so they can brush off problems you'd rather be able to take care of yourself.

But a solution is often a set or range of products, and in the case of vendors like IBM those products are paired with service. When you sell a product, the assumption is that once you sell it, you want nothing to do with the customer from thereon after. Tech support is offered only for problems. But if you are trying to impress upon customers the notion that the product and the sometimes rather involved, in-depth service associated with it are equally important, the term "solution" makes sense.

While the term is applicable to IBM, it's not applicable to many products that simply bill themselves as a solution, when in fact the vendor would rather eat rat poison than provide integrated and thorough support.

from the very begining

[khallow]

No one quite knows the exact point when high-tech marketing went wrong. When instead of selling distinct products and services, the company Web sites and brochures started pitching 'the next big thing.'

Here's a challenge. Point out any time when the high-tech industry was different in a qualitative way than it is now. I'm not going to slam the marketing industry here, but I think what you see is a natural outcome of several synergistic factors: 1) marketing doesn't understand what they are marketing, 2) the customer making the purchasing decision doesn't understand what they are buying, and 3) there can be enormous risk in associating your marketing effort with a particular product especially if that product is released in a buggy, defective conduction (as is often the case for first versions of high tech products).

Gee where to start, the list is so damn long

[gelfling]

Products that don't work
Service providers that can't make it work
Customers that don't care if it does
Executives that don't know IF it does
Solutions in search of problem that doesn't exist

Designed to fail, working as designed.

Two computers.

[jafac]

There are two kinds of people in the Computer Industry.

1. People who see computers as neat and useful tools, which can be adapted for nearly any purpose. Software or Products which give people additional ways to use their computers - especially tools that improve productivity, either personal, or at work, are generally going to succeed in the market place. The way to sell such products is often referred to as "Pull" Marketing.

2. People who see computers as neat and useful ways of getting consumers to spend money on stuff they wouldn't have otherwise spent it. This is accomplished by pushing crippleware that looks neat on the surface, but is essentially useless to a user until they pay more money to unlock the useful features, or basically, the software ends up being a complicated scam to get someone to sign up for some service with a monthly fee.
These products ultimately fail. This kind of marketing is referred to as "PUSH" Marketing.

At the end of the day, #1 is the correct way of looking at computers, and there are a couple of tennants of business and innovation that prove it:

"Built it, and they will come."
and
"Invent a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door."

Unfortunately, High Tech Marketing is full of people who want the world to beat a path to their door, without all that costly and complicated mousetrap-inventing stuff.
They spend so much effort trying to find innovative ways to get people to spend more money, rather than innovated ways to make computers more useful tools for people to buy, because their lives are improved.

The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing-The "I" Factor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me give you his answer.

1. 
   "- who is going to pay for the investment in kit?"
   
   Not I.
   
   "- who is going to pay for the maintenance of the kit?"
   
   Not I.
   
   "- who is going to pay for the optics in the ducts?"
   
   Not I.
   
   "- who is going to dig the f* ducts?"
   
   Not I.
   
   "- who is going to pay for the kit to parlay it into the Ethernet in your house?"
   
   Not I
   
   "- what are we going to pipe it round your house with?"
   
   Not I.
   
   "- who do you ring when it don't work? The TV company, the film company? The telco?"
   
   Not I.
   

Cynical? Yes. But then that's what happens when the selfish meet the unrealistic, and they expect us to foot the bill.

"All this will never occur because municipal fiber to the curb has been killed by stupids in government and their cronies in the private markets."

Always someone elses fault.

Apple does this right

[melted]

G5, 64 bits, twice as many as 32 (what else do you need to know?), does digital pictures, email, video, etc. You're surfing the Internet within 5 minutes of unpacking the damn thing.

Of course it's not about the technology!

[aquarian]

Of course it's not about the technology, the product, or anything tangible. The tech boom was not driven by technologists, but by investment bankers. And what's their product? An investment/gambling vehicle -- stock!

Notice how many companies morphed and remorphed as the "technology" changed. This was not because of changing technology or changing demand for actual products. It's because they were always trying to convince their shareholders, or potential shareholders, that their stock would be the one to take advantage of the Next Big Thing. Hardware companies became software companies, which became web services companies, which became application service providers, which became web services companies again, giving way to media companies, which then became hardware companies again. Whatever this week's buzz was about, that's what they said they did. Sheesh.

Marketing material was so vague because they were trying to keep their options open!

IMO, most of the dotcoms really were "dotCONS" -- absolutely crooked.

Unlike Some, Joel Knows ASP.NET is not .NET

[wintermute1974]

I think he has egg on his face.. ASP.Net was a revolution

If you scroll down to the bottom of one of Joel's articles from 2004, you will find this quote:

Most .NET developers are ASP.NET developers, developing for Microsoft's web server. ASP.NET is brilliant. I've been working with web development for ten years and it's really just a generation ahead of everything out there. But it's a server technology [...]

So no, Joel does not have egg on his face. You should give him some credit.

Re:Unlike Some, Joel Knows ASP.NET is not .NET

[wintermute1974]

The quote is from this article:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

The moral of the story: Pressing the preview button won't save you if you don't actually READ the preview before hitting submit.

Call me a cynic...

[McDoobie]

In my opinion the reason customers flock more to shiny advertising rather than good products is because thier mostly deliberately ignorant.

Just ask an end user a question, any question...like "How many viruses did your computer pick up this week?" And the answer is always the same..."I don't know that shit. Keeping it REAL!"
Users/customers love to keep it real. Real dumb.

After a while I got so fed up with watching the illiteratis jaws flop open at every shiny advertisement that I quit my job. I got another job with a slightly smaller salary but with the peace of working in a back office where I remain relatively untouched by thier slobbering demands for "latest" batch of B.S.

It's not that they can't tell the difference between good technology and bad. The problem is that they wont. Even when it bites them in the ass. Even grandma should have the common sense to know that if she doesn't want to understand the technology, she probably shouldn't be using it. Yeah, she might be from the old school, but she isn't stupid.

Okay...cynicism off. Back to the world...

The Sequel

[shroompicker]

It's not about the appearance: Decision making means you actually have to pick one of the choices.

• Why choice must be clearly defined. Case study: The San Francisco bridge and why it doesn't jump around to every block in the city per every driver's wishes.
• Why being "conversant" in technology is not enough. The subtle differences between being conversant in and actually knowing a fact. What "getting around to a fact" really means.
• How to keep a marketer from changing their minds every five minutes: one-liners, surveillance techniques, biofeedback coercion methods.
• The course every marketer should take: Choice, Decision making, and their relevant data structures.
• An engineer's guide to making them understand. Hint: They usually stop after the first three words. All the "uh-huh's" they give you are just out of courtesy to "they way you do stuff"
• Why every marketer fears writing: It means you actually have to pick words, and they stay there forever. Why, to the rest of the world, this "means" something.

Re:The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing-The "I" Factor

[sgt101]

Nice - yup this is the issue, in the can, bingo.

Of course a business model will be found, because different people will pay. Gamers will pay for more responsive services, home workers for QoS, personalisation and management (net nanny things, perhaps) will sell to young families. It's a cert that people will be able to think of other things and there will be providers to pay for them, but only where nice mr telco is around to foot the overall bill for the build out, support and initial application deployment to seed the market for every f'n pirate to storm in afterwards!

Hoist the jolly rodger! arrr arrr!