4 ms·
That doesn't quite match the reality that I can see. A static piece of code may tend to 0 (business) value, but software that is actively being used and mainta
by starbugs 7y ago
That doesn't quite match the reality that I can see.
A static piece of code may tend to 0 (business) value, but software that is actively being used and maintained tends to have significant value. That is probably one of the key reasons why the service model is so successful. Static software's value rots away quickly, but software that is actively being used appears to be getting more valuable over time.
If and when the point of advanced AI that you describe is reached, does it still matter? Everything will have lost its value by then unless society changes its mind about what a machine with that level of intelligence is.
Just my 2 cents.
- m_mueller 7y agoI get the impression that we're actually in agreement, just with different wording. For me the term 'software' is describing exactly that, a static piece of code. The usage part is encoded in data that goes back to the developers - but if all they do with it is provide another static piece of code (e.g. an upgrade), we're at the same starting point again. Now, if you merge together development and operations, such that usage data is always there to grab, analyse and push down a development pipeline - that's where the services model is shining, but not thanks to a piece of code, but due to tons of business processes running that others can't easily replicate.
- starbugs 7y agoRight, I guess we agree then. It's just that it doesn't work without writing that piece of software which gives it its value. But hasn't it been like that anyway all the time? Just in a slower way with more primitive distribution channels and less data flowing around?
- m_mueller 7y agoI think the distribution channels are exactly what changed - 25 years ago they were only available to large organizations, while now they're free and commoditized.