Re: Cocoa/EOF for non-enterprise apps Re: proof of cocoa
Re: Cocoa/EOF for non-enterprise apps Re: proof of cocoa
- Subject: Re: Cocoa/EOF for non-enterprise apps Re: proof of cocoa
- From: Bill Bumgarner <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:29:29 -0400
On Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 02:52 PM, John C. Randolph wrote:
On Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 07:51 AM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
Unfortunately, maintaining the ObjC/EOF APIs does not have an ROI
that can justify the resources necessary to do so-- not insignificant
resources.
What's the ROI on being a reliable vendor that can be trusted to keep
promises?
Can you name a single vendor in the marketplace that hasn't broken a few
promises to developers due to market realities?
I certainly can't.
Apple has had to make some very difficult decisions over the last few
years. A number of technologies got the bullet that were otherwise
excellent technologies, but didn't fit into Apple's business plan.
Look at all of the promises Apple *has* made that were *much* bigger
that they [eventually] came through on; a new OS (finally, had some
false starts there), profitability, a migration path (Carbon),
profitiability, legacy compatibility (Classic-- imperfect, but it
works), profitability, and numerous others.
As Eric Buck and others have pointed out, there is a significant amount
of revenue out there (tens of millions) that Apple has pissed away by
reneging on ObjC/EOF and other promises.
Tens of millions? Doubtful. How do you figure?
Even if Apple *could* have generated tens of millions in revenue on
EOF/ObjC, you are talking about a company that reports profits per
quarter in, what, near the 100 million mark? So, let's just be ultra
optimistic and say Apple could have generated $40,000,000 -- $10m /
quarter -- in *revenue* on EOF/ObjC this year.
How much of that is profit? Again, being ultra optimistic, let's say
that it is $2.5m/quarter in profit. Basically, a rounding error on the
profit declared by the company as a whole.
So, why would Apple invest significant engineering resources-- because
that is what it would take-- to maintain a product that can still be
seriously undermined by third party vendors [the database vendors]?
.... And to do that when there is an alternative [Java/EO/JDBC/Java
Client/D2JC/Cocoa] that a very large part of the development community
will be happier with AND will better support the ongoing business model
and goals of the company?
.... And to do that when it would take critical engineering
resources away from contributing to the refinement of the products [OS
X, hardware, and related technologies] that are actually driving Apple's
profitability?
b.bum