3 ms·
[citation needed] — meaning that merely because developers perceive themselves as being directly influential doesn’t mean that they are necessarily. Sure, devel
by qubex 7y ago
[citation needed] — meaning that merely because developers perceive themselves as being directly influential doesn’t mean that they are necessarily. Sure, developers ultimately dictate the success or failure of a platform by choosing to populate its ecosystem of applications or give it a pass, but I assure you that if the only way to develop for iOS/iPadOS were a clunky UNIVAC fed with punched cards, developers would be hand-punching ‘em cards in order to get on the runaway bandwagon of the successful platform.
- elorant 7y agoYou're missing the point. We're not influential because we can make or break a platform. We're influential because we're early adopters and thus we can see where the future is going. And as early adopters we interface between a given technology and the general public. We're not just individuals working out of a dungeon. We have friends and family and a social cycle who turn to us for advice for their technology needs.
- gowld 7y agoThat's how it was 30years ago. Now companies market to laypeople directly with simple plug and play solutions
- IAmEveryone 7y agoIf there are any products in computing history that do not owe their success to the model you're describing, it's iPod/iPhone/iPad. We got disintermediated with the very first iPod. Remember "less space than a Nomad. Lame!"? That was very much the attitude of the crowd you are describing. I distinctly remember a pry-my-keyboard-from-my-dead-hands attitude when the iPhone came out. It's only benevolence that stops me from constantly reminding the "power user" among my friends that his first reaction was "Not even a stylus?"