5 ms·

This is pretty clearly not the case. Apple and Facebook are companies, not platforms. The platforms these companies develop are wildly successful and loved by d

by zsck 8y ago

This is pretty clearly not the case. Apple and Facebook are companies, not platforms. The platforms these companies develop are wildly successful and loved by developers. I think you may be too focused on how developers decide a platform that is already successful. In that case, yes, which one is already adopted the most deserves strong consideration. However, when it comes to actually achieving adoption, it’s the platform that developers flock to that tend to succeed, all else being equal. We are talking about relatively fresh terrain here. There isn’t already a huge federated system like this that has a lot of mainstream adoption.

johncolanduoni 8y ago
> However, when it comes to actually achieving adoption, it’s the platform that developers flock to that tend to succeed, all else being equal. Perhaps, but I struggle to think of two comparable platforms with similar user adoption and significantly different developer interest, outside of there being different sets of developers that hate/love each (c.f. iOS and Android). I'm definitely not aware of any examples indicating a platform can be saved or damned by developers loving/hating it: e.g. most developers hated developing for the PS3 initially but it didn't fare badly in the console wars. Xbox One however did do much worse than the PS4 because fewer users wanted it.
- lelandbatey 8y ago
  Arguably, Linux owning the back end development space so completely is due to developer preference. But I think you do have a point. It's not just developer preference, there are other big factors like feature offered and ease of entry that determine likelihood of success.
  - baq 8y ago
    > Arguably, Linux owning the back end development space so completely is due to developer preference. and why is that possible? it's because the backend is decoupled from where the users are.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Because commercial UNIX companies decided it was cheaper to commoditize UNIX on their hardware than keeping on investing on their own. Linux would hardly be where it is without the help of Intel, IBM, HP, SGI, Hollywood studios, ...
      - baq 8y ago
        completely agree. i'm just saying it mostly isn't found on the desktop, neither on the iphone and you could argue neither really on android, so not in places where 'normal people' look. these people don't look at the backend so developers are free to pick whatever they want - Linux, Windows, unikernels, it doesn't matter for the end user.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Which is also one of the reasons why GNU/Linux failed as desktop OS. The lack of focus on UI/UX and a full stack experience for frontend developers (native/web). Hence why Android and ChromeOS succeed at it, while hiding what kernel they run on.
- adim86 8y ago
  Windows Phone is a platform that died cause developers did not get it. I think the issue I have with your PS3 example is that it is PS3, PlayStation was already on its third iteration. With PS2 being one of the most successful consoles of all time, companies were baked into that ecosystem. Whatever Playstation gave them, they had to work with, they fed their families that way. But I agree with the comment above. Developers support platforms (That are not yet popular) because they find it inspiring, they, in turn, give feedback to what they dislike about the platform, and if the platform has good management and responds quickly, developers work to grow that platform out. All great platforms I know today are because the company behind them inspired developers on what they could achieve using it.
taeric 8y ago
I suspect this is reversing causality. Developers flock to the platform that is succeeding. This is true of most things. Applicants flock to the industry that is hiring the most. It would be nice if the industry hiring the most was the most worthy, but that is doubtful. Consider mining communities.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  Of course it's both. But I think (independent) developers are much more likely to publish for a platform they think is fun to develop for.
  - taeric 8y ago
    And in this we just disagree. I assert people independently develop where they can. If they have the means, they develop where they can make money.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by zsck 8y ago

johncolanduoni 8y ago

> However, when it comes to actually achieving adoption, it’s the platform that developers flock to that tend to succeed, all else being equal. Perhaps, but I struggle to think of two comparable platforms with similar user adoption and significantly different developer interest, outside of there being different sets of developers that hate/love each (c.f. iOS and Android). I'm definitely not aware of any examples indicating a platform can be saved or damned by developers loving/hating it: e.g. most developers hated developing for the PS3 initially but it didn't fare badly in the console wars. Xbox One however did do much worse than the PS4 because fewer users wanted it.

lelandbatey 8y ago
Arguably, Linux owning the back end development space so completely is due to developer preference. But I think you do have a point. It's not just developer preference, there are other big factors like feature offered and ease of entry that determine likelihood of success.
- baq 8y ago
  > Arguably, Linux owning the back end development space so completely is due to developer preference. and why is that possible? it's because the backend is decoupled from where the users are.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Because commercial UNIX companies decided it was cheaper to commoditize UNIX on their hardware than keeping on investing on their own. Linux would hardly be where it is without the help of Intel, IBM, HP, SGI, Hollywood studios, ...
    - baq 8y ago
      completely agree. i'm just saying it mostly isn't found on the desktop, neither on the iphone and you could argue neither really on android, so not in places where 'normal people' look. these people don't look at the backend so developers are free to pick whatever they want - Linux, Windows, unikernels, it doesn't matter for the end user.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Which is also one of the reasons why GNU/Linux failed as desktop OS. The lack of focus on UI/UX and a full stack experience for frontend developers (native/web). Hence why Android and ChromeOS succeed at it, while hiding what kernel they run on.
adim86 8y ago
Windows Phone is a platform that died cause developers did not get it. I think the issue I have with your PS3 example is that it is PS3, PlayStation was already on its third iteration. With PS2 being one of the most successful consoles of all time, companies were baked into that ecosystem. Whatever Playstation gave them, they had to work with, they fed their families that way. But I agree with the comment above. Developers support platforms (That are not yet popular) because they find it inspiring, they, in turn, give feedback to what they dislike about the platform, and if the platform has good management and responds quickly, developers work to grow that platform out. All great platforms I know today are because the company behind them inspired developers on what they could achieve using it.

taeric 8y ago

I suspect this is reversing causality. Developers flock to the platform that is succeeding. This is true of most things. Applicants flock to the industry that is hiring the most. It would be nice if the industry hiring the most was the most worthy, but that is doubtful. Consider mining communities.

solarkraft 8y ago
Of course it's both. But I think (independent) developers are much more likely to publish for a platform they think is fun to develop for.
- taeric 8y ago
  And in this we just disagree. I assert people independently develop where they can. If they have the means, they develop where they can make money.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]