Re: historical context ...
Re: historical context ...
- Subject: Re: historical context ...
- From: Andrus Adamchik <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:13:47 +0300
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.
Being a WO consultant myself, I agree on this.
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 ?
Still the idea that the price drop caused WO being squeezed out of
the enterprise market is a myth. There are other more realistic
explanations that's been mentioned, but the price drop was simply a
reaction to the given technology becoming a commodity, with
alternatives tools being either free as in beer or free as in open
source. SAP market is not nearly as commoditized as web application
market, so that comparison is wrong. In other words, if Apple were to
reinstate WO "enterprise pricing", WO use would go from hundreds
(possibly thousands) of installations to single digits.
Andrus
On Jun 14, 2007, at 11:24 PM, Ken Anderson wrote:
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, webobjects-dev-
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:
40onpointsoftware.com
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40freeport.de
This email sent to email@hidden
Freeport & Soliversum
Alexander Spohr
email@hidden
www.freeport.de
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40onpointsoftware.com
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40anderhome.com
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40objectstyle.org
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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