Re: historical context ...
Re: historical context ...
- Subject: Re: historical context ...
- From: "Cheong Hee (Datasonic)" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:28:10 +0800
Indeed, many consultants had the most impacts of the sharp price drop.
Imagine, our team was one of the pioneer in this part of the world to start
from YellowBox and switch to the first version of WO (year 1997/98, Asia
Financial crisis i recalled). The great consultant like Gordon Jones and
Gideon King (I hope they don't mind name were mentioned) etc. were brought
in to work on one of the high profile project for world top insurance
company. Without the high price of WO licenses, how could we expect the
rate of consultancy could be USD2k/day (usual rate) when the software cost
is only USD699? I noticed that even nowadays, the rate for WO consultancy
are way low low...i may be wrong.
I am lucky in the sense that I worked through the learning curve and merely
need to did some catch-ups nowadays. Great things about WO is the
frameworks have withstood the years of acid tests and very stable (Good? not
major changes.), and hey defaultEditingContext.saveChanges() still there!
Also, omnigroup emails those days were packed with tips and Q&As. WebSphere
is still at infancy and nothing near to WO, from my observation of those
developers that switched from WO to WebSphere. They are yelling that many
codes could be just done with single line in WO!
Your prediction is right. Even the price drop does not increase the
significant developers over here. It even compelled those from WO to others
for a living. I am not qualified to speak on WO as I did it for passion and
love of the tool. It is a great and highly productivity tool. I have not
making it for a living for past years since my other knowledge seemed more
relevant. And I believed it should make into a better market position and
continue and shine for many years to come.
Cheers
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:24:30 -0400
From: Ken Anderson <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: historical context ...
To: Paul Yu <email@hidden>
Cc: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Actually, I think the result was totally predictable - in fact, I
predicted it.
The only way WebObjects was really usable was when consultants with
experience and skills brought it into a company and applied it's
capabilities intelligently. Once WO got cheap, it didn't make any
sense for those consultants to continue to push it. Imagine how many
of the big 5 accounting firms would drop SAP if SAP where $249.95 ?
Ken
On Jun 14, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Paul Yu wrote:
You are correct. WebObjects is one of the only examples of a
totally weird economic model. Drop the price, demand drops. Isn't
it suppose to be the other way around?
Once the price dropped, Apple could not support a major software
sales force to push WebObjects. Many of the IT shops just lost
track of WO. It wasn't taken seriously because it was too cheap,
but not open source. It did not show up on anyone's radar because
there was no sales force to push it. Many of the high-end
consulting services companies also suffered tremendously because of
the price drop. So we end up where we are now.
Hopefully, with WO 5.4 things will be better.
Paul
On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:36 PM, email@hidden
wrote:
From: Mark Morris <email@hidden>
Date: June 14, 2007 1:15:32 PM EDT
To: WebObjects Apple Dev <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: historical context ...
Poor choice of words on my part, I meant unlimited clients, per
server.
I also had the impression that WO was taken more seriously when it
had high-end pricing. Interesting, isn't it?
Regards,
Mark
On Jun 14, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Alexander Spohr wrote:
I remember these prices:
Developer: $3000
Deployment: $100.000 (Per System, unlimited CPUs)
Dep-Backup: $50.000
So there never was an unlimited deployment.
And that where the best times for WO; you could sell it to the
Big Players.
After the price-drop no one took WO seriously anymore. It almost
killed the high-end market.
atze
ps. We started using WO with version 0.9...
Am 14.06.2007 um 16:19 schrieb Mark Morris:
As I recall (and I didn't start with WebObjects until 1997, so
it could have been different in 1995 ;-), it was $50K for an
unlimited deployment license. I believe the per developer costs
were much, much less, but I can't remember specifics.
-- Mark
On Jun 14, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Cheong Hee (Datasonic) wrote:
It was once even voted by developers as the top 3 Java
Developer Tools in one of the surveys, if I could recall
correctly ...
The price at that time was nearly USD40k per developer license!
Wait a minute...
On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Gavin Eadie wrote:
The approach, which supports development for Sun's Java, will
allow programmers to vastly expand offerings on the Web,
changing
it from a fairly static medium to a more interactive one.
Did it start out supporting Java, then switch to Objective-C,
and
then back to Java??? If so, I had missed that part.
No, I assume that was a misunderstanding by the original
journalist,
like the comment about writing web browser plug-ins.
WebObjects was originally written for Objective C; WebScript was
added later, and Java was added even later still.
Paul
PS Shame I can't be at WWDC; in other news, the root canal
treatment
is going well.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden