3 ms·

And that’s why you stand where you are and Microsoft stand where it does. You’re thinking like an engineer. Microsoft is a business. Backwards compatible is it

And that’s why you stand where you are and Microsoft stand where it does. You’re thinking like an engineer. Microsoft is a business. Backwards compatible is its major core competency.

sys_64738 3y ago
And why you don’t allow developers to make business decisions.
- behnamoh 3y ago
  The huge backlash against Reddit's policy change is a good example of that. Sure, devs and programmers were upset, but after a week or two, all went back to normal as if nothing happened. Reddit continued to work, and its alternatives didn't gain much traction. I have an engineering background and then pivoted into managements science, and the difference in perspectives in the two fields is really obvious.
  - LexiMax 3y ago
    Let's not give Reddit's management too much credit. They've lit a decade's worth of investor and advertiser money on fire and have precious little to show for it. Their recent moves seem less like calculated business decisions and more like desperate scrambles to make the site appealing to public investors on very short notice.
cratermoon 3y ago
And yet Apple has famously broken compatibility on a regular basis. Remember when Apple went from Motorola 68000 to Intel x86? They did it by providing direct support to key companies to port their software, and providing Rosetta for applications that could take the performance hit.
- sowbug 3y ago
  Either extreme works. There's a sour spot (opposite of sweet spot?) in between, where the platform breaks compatibility, but not so predictably that customers remember how to reach their suppliers, and suppliers remember how to update their products.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    Yes, as long as the business communicates and executes well and makes the value proposition of the choice clear to their customers, either works. Being backwards-compatible to the beginning of time is not the only choice. My experience in the industry, however, is that most organizations cling to never breaking compatibility, under the flawed belief that it's always simpler or cheaper than planned migrations.
- runjake 3y ago
  I think you mean “PowerPC to Intel”. 68K was before PPC.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    You're right! It's been a long time. There was a 68K to PowerPC, then later Power to Intel, and now Intel to arm64.
- halestock 3y ago
  I think both are valid strategies, but it's usually a business decision, not a technology one.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    They are, but in my experience businesses will tend towards backwards compatibility without adequately weighing the costs of one versus the other. Cargo cult compatibility, so to speak.

And that’s why you stand where you are and Microsoft stand where it does. You’re thinking like an engineer. Microsoft is a business. Backwards compatible is its major core competency.

sys_64738 3y ago

And why you don’t allow developers to make business decisions.

behnamoh 3y ago
The huge backlash against Reddit's policy change is a good example of that. Sure, devs and programmers were upset, but after a week or two, all went back to normal as if nothing happened. Reddit continued to work, and its alternatives didn't gain much traction. I have an engineering background and then pivoted into managements science, and the difference in perspectives in the two fields is really obvious.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  Let's not give Reddit's management too much credit. They've lit a decade's worth of investor and advertiser money on fire and have precious little to show for it. Their recent moves seem less like calculated business decisions and more like desperate scrambles to make the site appealing to public investors on very short notice.

cratermoon 3y ago

And yet Apple has famously broken compatibility on a regular basis. Remember when Apple went from Motorola 68000 to Intel x86? They did it by providing direct support to key companies to port their software, and providing Rosetta for applications that could take the performance hit.

sowbug 3y ago
Either extreme works. There's a sour spot (opposite of sweet spot?) in between, where the platform breaks compatibility, but not so predictably that customers remember how to reach their suppliers, and suppliers remember how to update their products.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  Yes, as long as the business communicates and executes well and makes the value proposition of the choice clear to their customers, either works. Being backwards-compatible to the beginning of time is not the only choice. My experience in the industry, however, is that most organizations cling to never breaking compatibility, under the flawed belief that it's always simpler or cheaper than planned migrations.
runjake 3y ago
I think you mean “PowerPC to Intel”. 68K was before PPC.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  You're right! It's been a long time. There was a 68K to PowerPC, then later Power to Intel, and now Intel to arm64.
halestock 3y ago
I think both are valid strategies, but it's usually a business decision, not a technology one.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  They are, but in my experience businesses will tend towards backwards compatibility without adequately weighing the costs of one versus the other. Cargo cult compatibility, so to speak.