Re: Any WWDC News (Business Logic)
Re: Any WWDC News (Business Logic)
- Subject: Re: Any WWDC News (Business Logic)
- From: Trae Nickelson <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:43:27 -0500
Ashley,
VERY well put. I think that Apple's business logic is the ONLY glaring
error in the WO effort today.
Don't they realize that as they try to push into enterprise and sell G5
xServes, that we can help them do that? If Apple would spend any REAL
effort to present WebObjects or just Enterprise Objects to the IT
world, we developers could go up against a BEA or IBM development team
and not get laughed out of the room. They would sell more servers, and
make further inroads into the enterprise space. How can they miss
that? It's an easy story to tell: the recent supercomputer press,
64-bit architecture, Unix based, WebObjects the first real and most
mature web application framework, running the 5th (or whatever) busiest
web store (Apple Store), running the incredible iTunes effort,
virus-free, more secure, cheaper, awesome admin features - it all just
falls together. We could really help out here. I don't get it.
I think you are right. We can't all just drop WebObjects cold turkey.
(I've been working on a WebObjects project all day today between
rants.) But I think it's time to loosen our grips a little, and start
getting familiar with the potential replacements. We all should at
least be aware of where the exits to this plane are located (keeping in
mind that the closest exit may be behind you). I agree with you that
it looks like by the time Apple gets it all sorted out (if they even
care to), the alternatives will have arrived. I can't believe Apple
has let it come to this. I'm bummed.
Trae Nickelson
On Jun 30, 2004, at 11:20 PM, Ashley Aitken wrote:
Howdy All,
I think this is an important discussion that we should have. I share
your general admiration for the technology WebObjects technology and
utter frustration with Apple.
On 01/07/2004, at 10:24 AM, Trae Nickelson wrote:
... I don't think there is anything more the WO community can do for
Apple. The ball's in their court.
... and has been for a long time.
I think we all understand the situation. I give regular two hour
seminars on WebObjects (the seminar is titled "Rapid Development
Technologies" but basically it is an explanation of the technologies
within WebObjects with lots of demonstrations) to IT managers and
developers in Australia. Of course, none of these are supported or
even encouraged by Apple Australia.
The results are always the same, the audience is amazed by the power
of WebObjects (and its price), and sometimes somewhat embarrassed that
they have charged their clients so much for what they could do so
quickly with WO (EOF, D2*). Of course, there is always the "Why
haven't we heard about this (if its so good)?" questions. With the
obvious (and sometimes rude) answers.
So I think we need to look at Apple's business strategy - why Apple
isn't taking advantage of this situation. The following is just
speculation, of course, I have no inside information, and I am never
run a company the size of Apple (or anywhere near it ;-). However, I
think it can be useful to try and understand (perhaps) why they are
doing what they do.
I've mentioned in a previous email in this thread why I think Apple
(and perhaps NeXT) failed when they made their initial push with
WebObjects (mostly because they were so far ahead of their time, most
developers and management were just not ready). Recently, however,
Apple is trying to move slowly back into the Enterprise space (a
space where WO fits in well).
The problem is if Apple goes to businesses suggesting that they use
WebObjects, most companies will think it is the same-old-Apple pushing
proprietary non-standard technologies. Apple has tried to ameliorate
this concern by making WO sound standards-compliant, but the fact is
it is not PHP, or J2EE, or .Net (of course, it is something much
better for most things).
So Apple is trying to keep the business profitable, sticking to a
business plan to get back into the Enterprise space. WebObjects is
not a part of this plan, and only kept around because it gives them a
real competitive advantage in-house, and selling it enables them to
(somewhat) support the development. They can't afford to market it
(and don't) when it only costs $699.
So the problem, I think, is Apple is not in the
enterprise-application-development-framework/tool business, even now,
when I think it is the perfect time for them to be (with developers
and management just becoming aware of the need for lighter-weight
containers). I think they were burnt by their earlier "push" and have
just decided it is not in their plan.
So what can/should we do? I am not sure (this is an analysis email
not a solutions post ;-). I think we should keep using (and
evangelizing) WebObjects where we can and are able, it is the best
solution for a lot of cases and is not going away in the short-medium
term. Apple will help where they can (i.e. cheap and easy) but don't
expect much more.
We could also lower risks by investigating alternatives like
Tapestry/Cayenne (or using interfaces for business logic classes).
Like others have mentioned, other technologies are catching up.
However, as I also said before, I don't believe anything comparable to
JavaClient (real business-side objects) or the D2* technologies (Web
and Java client) presently exists.
Perhaps (horrible word to base a business decision on) when Apple gets
into the Enterprise then WO may get fuller support. Unfortunately
though, by then there will probably be other comparable (or better)
offerings. Finally, please understand, I'm not trying to find an
excuse for Apple here, I'm just trying to analyse and understand why
they are behaving the way they are.
Cheers,
Ashley.
--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia
mrhatken at mac dot com
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.