7 ms·

Big corporate is such a weird space. On one hand, you're right: big corporate will block this, and that will limit the impact, and thus I think a lot of the ha

by veidr 15y ago

Big corporate is such a weird space. On one hand, you're right: big corporate will block this, and that will limit the impact, and thus I think a lot of the hallelujah in this thread is over-optimistic. But MS would never force such consequential upgrades on those customers; that's part of why MS owned and still owns the "enterprise" market (decreasingly lucrative though it may be). On the other hand, I doubt that consumer adoption driving sites to drop support for IE6 will have any substantial impact on what megacorps decide to deploy. One of the things that really blew my mind this year was a large ($40MM) software development project I became familiar with (a worldwide internal system for a multinational corporation) that concluded -- in 2011 -- and required MSIE 6. MSIE 6! Doesn't even run on MSIE 7, much less any modern browser. While I personally think that's insane -- if you are that specific (not to mention antiquated) with your browser requirements, why don't you just code a native app? -- I've also never developed software with a team larger than five, and certainly don't know the nitty-gritty details about spreading the work over a dozen countries and hundreds of developers, the vast majority being low-cost Chinese and Indian coders. So I'm not judging (or at least I'm trying not to). But my point is that Big Corporate just wants their freaky "web-based" apps to run predictably for the projected 6-year deployment timeframe and does not give one flying fuck about whether their staff can access the new hip and way-superior version of <ANY OTHER WEB APP ON EARTH>. Unless said had real business value to large enterprise, but then, if it did... it would probably support MSIE6. So while this news is welcome, it's still unlikely that the computing capabilities of the typical large-company locked-down employee PC are going to become awesome, or even good. Even MSIE8, while way better than 6, still isn't something you jump for joy having to develop for. This matters less and less, though, as the percentage of people who have a way more capable browser in in their pocket increases. So I think that it is starting to make a lot more sense to give up on corporate machines and dead-end legacy browsers, and instead spend that effort on scaling your app's interface to smaller form factors. (Disclaimer: that's what I think, but not what I actually do. I work on web-based software for medium-sized businesses, so I don't have to worry much about what browser users happen to have. In this context, you can have requirements, and I tend to just say, 'In order to decrease development costs, the system requires the Google Chrome browser. But don't worry: it's free, secure, cross-platform, and has become the dominant web technology standard.' That last part is a bit of customer-reassurance hyperbole, but so far, no problems. (And of course the same code typically works fine on Safari if there's an iOS requirement.))

ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
Just curious, what makes you think the "enterprise" market is less lucrative than it used to be?
- phillmv 15y ago
  No growth. Everyone who could possibly use a Windows license has a Windows license and drags their feet about upgrading. You're either busy growing or you're busy dying. As a potential shareholder, I care more about growth than straight up profitability.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    By this logic, as soon as you saturate the market, you are dying?
    - phillmv 15y ago
      Yes. You need to find/create more markets. Look at Apple. iPod -> iPhone -> iPad. If I invest 100 dollars in you, I want to receive a percentage back after a certain while. You need to be able to give me 103 dollars back the next year just to beat inflation, i.e. for this to not have been a complete waste of my time. In real terms, this means you need to grow your business by at least 3% in order to give me that return. I'm not the right person to talk about this, as my knowledge is thin and my metaphors are poor, but even if you're the sole owner you start to lose money if you don't grow at a reliable rate.
      - tomkarlo 15y ago
        You're right in that most businesses need to grow to increase their value (generally because growth is built into their current valuation) but the narrative you're using isn't on target. It's entirely possible for a business to give investors good returns even if their business or market isn't growing. Profitability and cash returns from a business can grow as revenues decline if the company either increases operating efficiency, or reduces in investment in recognition of the declining opportunity. MBAs would call this a "cash cow" business - one that should be milked. We dont tend to see this much in tech because growth is such a fundamental part of our valuations that no company is willing to admit it's in such a position. And you'd probably lose all your engineers over time. But when you look at say, Microsoft, and strip away their non-performing businesses, that's what it looks like: a company that has some assets that produce a lot of profits, but aren't really growing any more, yet if managed properly can continue to throw off gobs of cash for years to come.

by veidr 15y ago

ArbitraryLimits 15y ago

Just curious, what makes you think the "enterprise" market is less lucrative than it used to be?

phillmv 15y ago
No growth. Everyone who could possibly use a Windows license has a Windows license and drags their feet about upgrading. You're either busy growing or you're busy dying. As a potential shareholder, I care more about growth than straight up profitability.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  By this logic, as soon as you saturate the market, you are dying?
  - phillmv 15y ago
    Yes. You need to find/create more markets. Look at Apple. iPod -> iPhone -> iPad. If I invest 100 dollars in you, I want to receive a percentage back after a certain while. You need to be able to give me 103 dollars back the next year just to beat inflation, i.e. for this to not have been a complete waste of my time. In real terms, this means you need to grow your business by at least 3% in order to give me that return. I'm not the right person to talk about this, as my knowledge is thin and my metaphors are poor, but even if you're the sole owner you start to lose money if you don't grow at a reliable rate.
    - tomkarlo 15y ago
      You're right in that most businesses need to grow to increase their value (generally because growth is built into their current valuation) but the narrative you're using isn't on target. It's entirely possible for a business to give investors good returns even if their business or market isn't growing. Profitability and cash returns from a business can grow as revenues decline if the company either increases operating efficiency, or reduces in investment in recognition of the declining opportunity. MBAs would call this a "cash cow" business - one that should be milked. We dont tend to see this much in tech because growth is such a fundamental part of our valuations that no company is willing to admit it's in such a position. And you'd probably lose all your engineers over time. But when you look at say, Microsoft, and strip away their non-performing businesses, that's what it looks like: a company that has some assets that produce a lot of profits, but aren't really growing any more, yet if managed properly can continue to throw off gobs of cash for years to come.