At the risk of losing "street cred" on this topic, I gotta say I agree with Joel here.
If 37signals had not released Rails for free, they would never have hit the radar screen with Basecamp. It's just like one of a dozen other apps that do similar things. It doesn't do it particularly well and it doesn't look visually appealing. The difference had nothing to do with "simplicity" -- it had 100% to do with releasing Rails for free.
Apple's iPod is not simple. It's effective. Joel is just saying that people are misusing the term simple and he's right. Apple's iPod plays MP3s, podcasts, and other media just like other players before and after it. The feature sets are nearly identical. What makes the iPod different is that it is executed well.
A simple interface is one that has very few features. An effective interface is one that has richness beyond the exposure of features. It puts the most-used ones front-and-center and shelters the lesser-used ones at intuitive layers of hierarchy.
It is truly an art to make something complex (iPod, good software) APPEAR to be simple (Basecamp, et. al.).
I'm not sure what zoo you frequent, but I haven't seen many primates assume the relaxing 135-degree lean-back posture.
Perhaps you'd have better luck arguing that we (as humans) evolved a sophisticated intelligence for the sole purpose of developing the recliner to improve our posture.
Microsoft has been successful on two fronts: Operating systems and Office. On almost everything else, they have failed. (from a profitability point of view)
It's not going to happen, but I'd mostly be interested in the works in the Vatican Archives (even the secret stuff!). They've locked up a significant portion of our written human history and made them unavailable to folks.
That's one way to look at it. However, the other way to look at it is that Intel had used its monopoly position to illegally damage AMD's position in the marketplace.
We should all know by now that it isn't necessarily technical prowess that leads to market dominance. If Intel is shown to be a monopoly in this case, it would mean that AMD was somehow prevented (illegally) from competing in the marketplace.
Consider this: You and your friend Timmy are trying out for the 7th-grade basketball team. You can either compete based on your merits or you can kick Timmy in the ankle, causing a sprained ankle earlier in the day. Some less-than-ethical types (Microsoft, Standard Oil) would argue that both are reasonable competitive practices.
Others would say that while Timmy wasn't able to compete in this particular match-up based on his merits as a basketball player, it was due to "illegal" competitive practices.
Ecomonies of scale, really. If the estimate of 450,000 is correct, it means that Google isn't going to go out and buy 100k - 1MM servers tomorrow. They're buying in large quantity, but not enough to justify building their own. I'd guess they buy 1k to 10k at a time.
As a buyer, Google still wants choice in the marketplace. If they design their own boards, they don't get much choice over time. They pay for every decision with risk. Get everyone to jump on-board with this and they have hundreds of choices in the marketplace.
I basically agree with this, but think the developers should find some real designer talent to bring it about. For example, the screenshots are horrible. They took window shots, then faded the borders to white, then added a drop shadow. If you can't tell that this doesn't look right, you're in the wrong league.
Don't fade borders if you're compositing a complete window. Faded borders are the graphical equivalent of an ellipsis.
And definitely don't add a drop shadow to something you've already faded to white. It looks ridiculous.
The primary drawback, however, is that NSIS is Windows-only. While you can *build* installers on multiple platforms, the installer itself will only work on Windows.
I would think this move would create some disparity in installation between plaforms.
Actually, I would have said that 37signals stuff is the worst advertisement for Rails. While inventors of a very nice framework, their graphic / layout design is horrible. Their apps are rife with inconsistencies and elements that would make any designer cringe.
All it takes to "own the linux market" is good drivers. Not open-source ones. Most people will gravitate towards that which works. Having the source code available is only important for a small group of people.
That said, having source code available may help improve quality, but it certainly isn't a foregone conclusion.
Really? This is just error correction. Reed-Solomon
error correction, and even the Chinese Remainder Theorem can be applied to reconstruct data when some has been intentionally or unintentionally punctured.
Anyone ever see the Great Space Coaster? A kids show back in the late 70's / early 80's. I remember thinking that someday we'll have projectors that small that take a match-sized video 'capsule' and played a movie. It seems only days away now...
Actually, in a sense I am being forced to. You see, the software I use is only available under Windows (a lot of CAD software and what not). Microsoft's monopoly position has driven the market into a situation where software vendors much support Windows in order to get users and users must use Wnidows in order to get software. Now, all of -my company's- software is written cross platform with wxWindows because it is a no-brainer -- MFC? wxWindows?
But the simple fact is, if I want to make a living, I have to use and support Windows. You could argue that well, just have an unsuccessful business and live poor. You'd be right. I could just live poor.
This is a lot like Microsoft's business plan, but at the hardware level. It leaves ISV's out of the loop. "Centrino" was perhaps the most serious example of this that I've seen.
It's not really that depressing if you look at what is actually accomplished by these commercialization folks. I put together an ethernet MP3 device in 1999 that still blows all these things away. I built ten and use them in my house. I think it's more flattering to see these things pop up every now and again and think -- man, they're still back in the stone ages with this stuff, I made that four years ago. And then further realize that they haven't made a better one yet. Cantante MP3 Player
At this point, it's jealousy. I see these guys and think they're probably sittin' pretty comfortable while I still drive to my crappy job every day just to have people tell me I'm lucky to have a job at all...
Personally, I think this is great. I've used Linux for 8 years now. Competition is good for a marketplace and Microsoft certainly doesn't offer any competition.
Slashdot Mirror
At the risk of losing "street cred" on this topic, I gotta say I agree with Joel here.
If 37signals had not released Rails for free, they would never have hit the radar screen with Basecamp. It's just like one of a dozen other apps that do similar things. It doesn't do it particularly well and it doesn't look visually appealing. The difference had nothing to do with "simplicity" -- it had 100% to do with releasing Rails for free.
Apple's iPod is not simple. It's effective. Joel is just saying that people are misusing the term simple and he's right. Apple's iPod plays MP3s, podcasts, and other media just like other players before and after it. The feature sets are nearly identical. What makes the iPod different is that it is executed well.
A simple interface is one that has very few features. An effective interface is one that has richness beyond the exposure of features. It puts the most-used ones front-and-center and shelters the lesser-used ones at intuitive layers of hierarchy.
It is truly an art to make something complex (iPod, good software) APPEAR to be simple (Basecamp, et. al.).
I'm not sure what zoo you frequent, but I haven't seen many primates assume the relaxing 135-degree lean-back posture.
Perhaps you'd have better luck arguing that we (as humans) evolved a sophisticated intelligence for the sole purpose of developing the recliner to improve our posture.
Microsoft has been successful on two fronts: Operating systems and Office. On almost everything else, they have failed. (from a profitability point of view)
It's not going to happen, but I'd mostly be interested in the works in the Vatican Archives (even the secret stuff!). They've locked up a significant portion of our written human history and made them unavailable to folks.
That's one way to look at it. However, the other way to look at it is that Intel had used its monopoly position to illegally damage AMD's position in the marketplace.
We should all know by now that it isn't necessarily technical prowess that leads to market dominance. If Intel is shown to be a monopoly in this case, it would mean that AMD was somehow prevented (illegally) from competing in the marketplace.
Consider this: You and your friend Timmy are trying out for the 7th-grade basketball team. You can either compete based on your merits or you can kick Timmy in the ankle, causing a sprained ankle earlier in the day. Some less-than-ethical types (Microsoft, Standard Oil) would argue that both are reasonable competitive practices.
Others would say that while Timmy wasn't able to compete in this particular match-up based on his merits as a basketball player, it was due to "illegal" competitive practices.
Ecomonies of scale, really. If the estimate of 450,000 is correct, it means that Google isn't going to go out and buy 100k - 1MM servers tomorrow. They're buying in large quantity, but not enough to justify building their own. I'd guess they buy 1k to 10k at a time.
As a buyer, Google still wants choice in the marketplace. If they design their own boards, they don't get much choice over time. They pay for every decision with risk. Get everyone to jump on-board with this and they have hundreds of choices in the marketplace.
I basically agree with this, but think the developers should find some real designer talent to bring it about. For example, the screenshots are horrible. They took window shots, then faded the borders to white, then added a drop shadow. If you can't tell that this doesn't look right, you're in the wrong league.
Don't fade borders if you're compositing a complete window. Faded borders are the graphical equivalent of an ellipsis.
And definitely don't add a drop shadow to something you've already faded to white. It looks ridiculous.
I found this interesting, as well.
The primary drawback, however, is that NSIS is Windows-only. While you can *build* installers on multiple platforms, the installer itself will only work on Windows.
I would think this move would create some disparity in installation between plaforms.
We actually built this same hierarchical thing into an interface of an MP3 player in 1999: http://janovetz.com/cantante (See the Screenshots page)
Unfortunately, it was never "widely known", so not enough to qualify as prior art.
Actually, I would have said that 37signals stuff is the worst advertisement for Rails. While inventors of a very nice framework, their graphic / layout design is horrible. Their apps are rife with inconsistencies and elements that would make any designer cringe.
All it takes to "own the linux market" is good drivers. Not open-source ones. Most people will gravitate towards that which works. Having the source code available is only important for a small group of people.
That said, having source code available may help improve quality, but it certainly isn't a foregone conclusion.
Really? This is just error correction. Reed-Solomon error correction, and even the Chinese Remainder Theorem can be applied to reconstruct data when some has been intentionally or unintentionally punctured.
Now, when will they offer a display upgrade to 1680x1050 or 1920x1200?
Do you have any idea how much a 1,024-processor version of Windows XP Pro costs??
Anyone ever see the Great Space Coaster? A kids show back in the late 70's / early 80's. I remember thinking that someday we'll have projectors that small that take a match-sized video 'capsule' and played a movie. It seems only days away now...
Actually, in a sense I am being forced to. You see, the software I use is only available under Windows (a lot of CAD software and what not). Microsoft's monopoly position has driven the market into a situation where software vendors much support Windows in order to get users and users must use Wnidows in order to get software. Now, all of -my company's- software is written cross platform with wxWindows because it is a no-brainer -- MFC? wxWindows?
But the simple fact is, if I want to make a living, I have to use and support Windows. You could argue that well, just have an unsuccessful business and live poor. You'd be right. I could just live poor.
This is a lot like Microsoft's business plan, but at the hardware level. It leaves ISV's out of the loop. "Centrino" was perhaps the most serious example of this that I've seen.
It's not really that depressing if you look at what is actually accomplished by these commercialization folks. I put together an ethernet MP3 device in 1999 that still blows all these things away. I built ten and use them in my house. I think it's more flattering to see these things pop up every now and again and think -- man, they're still back in the stone ages with this stuff, I made that four years ago. And then further realize that they haven't made a better one yet.
Cantante MP3 Player
At this point, it's jealousy. I see these guys and think they're probably sittin' pretty comfortable while I still drive to my crappy job every day just to have people tell me I'm lucky to have a job at all...
Personally, I think this is great. I've used Linux for 8 years now. Competition is good for a marketplace and Microsoft certainly doesn't offer any competition.