4 ms·

I'd say the true target of this criticism is content-aware platforms, as opposed to content-neutral platforms, which I believe are what people often mean when t

I'd say the true target of this criticism is content-aware platforms, as opposed to content-neutral platforms, which I believe are what people often mean when they talk about "closed" and "open" platforms. The author favorably mentions targeting Windows and Mac OS, which certainly are proprietary, but they do not restrict the user of any content, essentially dumb pipes from hardware to content; these content-neutral platforms would be OK to build a business on. Platforms mentioned as bad were the iPhone, Twitter and Facebook, platforms where the vendor can and does restrict their users' access to content via arbitrary changes to their usage licenses, and such content-aware platforms are shaky grounds to build a business on.

raganwald 16y ago
Well, MacOS and Windows may be "content-neutral" in a certain sense but historically both vendors have gone into competition with developers... So from my perspective "proprietary" means sleeping with an 800lb. gorilla, and all we are debating is whether the gorilla wants to eat you or simply rolled over in their sleep and crushed you by accident. http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/ http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/
- metachor 16y ago
  The lesson I took away from Panic's Audion story is that they got gridlocked while trying to play two potential buyers (AOL and Apple), and Apple ended up moving forward with a less encumbered competitor. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like Panic wanted to get eaten by an 800lb. gorilla.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Oh? I think they wanted to get rich, but not to sell out: In fact, I'd say that almost 5 minutes after the meeting Steve and I knew in our hearts that it wasn't time — that we didn't want to join Apple (yet). We maybe went through the motions of "deciding" on the flight back home, but I think we knew the truth. And the truth went something like this: "This is our only chance to do Panic. We don't have kids, we're not married, we don't have huge obligations. We didn't invest our life savings into it, just a few hundred dollars. We don't even have life savings. We probably won't get this opportunity again in our lifetime — the full chance to take a complete risk, to experiment, quit our day jobs, start a business that certainly may fail, put our hearts into the soul of it, and try to make it fly — making the best possible Macintosh software we can without the threat of mortgages or the cost of braces or kids wondering why we're never home. And while there may be a time in our life where we crave some stability, or there may be a time in our life when things don't work out with Panic and we return to be a player in a larger, awesome team like Apple, that time is certainly not now. Panic's time is."
  - raganwald 16y ago
    post scriptum: Whether Panic wanted to sell or not, the fact remains that building on a proprietary platform is perilous. Some people may still want to do so, but this is analogous to pointing out that BASE jumping is thrilling and deeply satisfying. We can agree that Panic did consider a sale to AOL and Apple without taking anything away from the fact that a content-neutral proprietary platform still carries the risk that you will wake up one morning to discover that the vendor is giving away competition.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  There's a huge difference between someone competing against you in the marketplace (yes, including with free offerings), and that same someone rejecting your iPhone app and preventing you from distributing it entirely. The risks are of different orders of magnitude.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    If developing for Windows is an order of magnitude safer than developing for iPhone, how many orders of magnitude is developing for the web safer than developing for Windows? I think the risks vary from platform to platform, market to market, and even possibly from executive making the decision to executive making the decision. What are the risks of Apple competing with or even rejecting iDeco, an iPhone application for estimating decompression diving profiles? Minimal. Does that weaken the argument that building on a proprietary platform places you at Apple's mercy? I don't think so. It's true that with iDeco they could reject it whereas with VPlanner desktop software they can only give away free decompression software. But this is like arguing the difference between living with a school principal who can expel you vs. a bully who can beat you up at recess. If school looks good to you, go and enjoy yourself. The fundamental situation remains that when you build on a proprietary platform you expose yourself to risk of harm from the vendor. Manage that risk wisely and keep your eyes open.
    - dejb 16y ago
      > how many orders of magnitude is developing for the web safer than developing for Windows? Depends on the primary source of your visitors/customers. If that's Google (as is the case with many web companies) then they could introduce a service much like yours and direct people there instead.

raganwald 16y ago

Well, MacOS and Windows may be "content-neutral" in a certain sense but historically both vendors have gone into competition with developers... So from my perspective "proprietary" means sleeping with an 800lb. gorilla, and all we are debating is whether the gorilla wants to eat you or simply rolled over in their sleep and crushed you by accident. http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/ http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/

metachor 16y ago
The lesson I took away from Panic's Audion story is that they got gridlocked while trying to play two potential buyers (AOL and Apple), and Apple ended up moving forward with a less encumbered competitor. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like Panic wanted to get eaten by an 800lb. gorilla.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Oh? I think they wanted to get rich, but not to sell out: In fact, I'd say that almost 5 minutes after the meeting Steve and I knew in our hearts that it wasn't time — that we didn't want to join Apple (yet). We maybe went through the motions of "deciding" on the flight back home, but I think we knew the truth. And the truth went something like this: "This is our only chance to do Panic. We don't have kids, we're not married, we don't have huge obligations. We didn't invest our life savings into it, just a few hundred dollars. We don't even have life savings. We probably won't get this opportunity again in our lifetime — the full chance to take a complete risk, to experiment, quit our day jobs, start a business that certainly may fail, put our hearts into the soul of it, and try to make it fly — making the best possible Macintosh software we can without the threat of mortgages or the cost of braces or kids wondering why we're never home. And while there may be a time in our life where we crave some stability, or there may be a time in our life when things don't work out with Panic and we return to be a player in a larger, awesome team like Apple, that time is certainly not now. Panic's time is."
- raganwald 16y ago
  post scriptum: Whether Panic wanted to sell or not, the fact remains that building on a proprietary platform is perilous. Some people may still want to do so, but this is analogous to pointing out that BASE jumping is thrilling and deeply satisfying. We can agree that Panic did consider a sale to AOL and Apple without taking anything away from the fact that a content-neutral proprietary platform still carries the risk that you will wake up one morning to discover that the vendor is giving away competition.
WiseWeasel 16y ago
There's a huge difference between someone competing against you in the marketplace (yes, including with free offerings), and that same someone rejecting your iPhone app and preventing you from distributing it entirely. The risks are of different orders of magnitude.
- raganwald 16y ago
  If developing for Windows is an order of magnitude safer than developing for iPhone, how many orders of magnitude is developing for the web safer than developing for Windows? I think the risks vary from platform to platform, market to market, and even possibly from executive making the decision to executive making the decision. What are the risks of Apple competing with or even rejecting iDeco, an iPhone application for estimating decompression diving profiles? Minimal. Does that weaken the argument that building on a proprietary platform places you at Apple's mercy? I don't think so. It's true that with iDeco they could reject it whereas with VPlanner desktop software they can only give away free decompression software. But this is like arguing the difference between living with a school principal who can expel you vs. a bully who can beat you up at recess. If school looks good to you, go and enjoy yourself. The fundamental situation remains that when you build on a proprietary platform you expose yourself to risk of harm from the vendor. Manage that risk wisely and keep your eyes open.
  - dejb 16y ago
    > how many orders of magnitude is developing for the web safer than developing for Windows? Depends on the primary source of your visitors/customers. If that's Google (as is the case with many web companies) then they could introduce a service much like yours and direct people there instead.