4 ms·
The counter-counter example is Apple. No dependencies on anything (relatively speaking). More control over design & production of hardware than hardware compani
by netcan 14y ago
The counter-counter example is Apple. No dependencies on anything (relatively speaking). More control over design & production of hardware than hardware companies. Software runs on their own hardware. iOS & OSX devices are complete & useful products out of the box without a need for 3rd party applications. Application markets are controlled and no one application (except maybe MS office) can really affect them. They prefer the internet to the web. Anything else.
The examples people are going to think of are mostly going to be building businesses on/in app markets and/or social networks. These are both young spaces. in 5-10 years we're going to have seen spectacular successes & failures. Every one of their stories is going to have the "somebody else's platform" parading as a main character. Sometimes it'll be the hero. Sometimes the villain.
- jt2190 14y ago> The counter-counter example is Apple. I disagree that Apple is a good counter-counter example. They started on the CP/M platform, which was proprietary. They were eventually able to develop their own operating system, thanks to the resources that success had given them.
- masklinn 14y ago> They started on the CP/M platform Uh? Aren't you confusing Apple and Microsoft? Apple started with the Apple I, a fully wired circuit board custom-built by Woz. The Apple II was much the same, although it could run CP/M via a dedicated Z-80 expansion card from third parties. On the other hand, Microsoft got started when Allen and Gates wrote a BASIC for the MITS Altair 8800 (not CP/M) then built MS-DOS on top of a CP/M clone (again not CP/M) for the IBM PC contract.
- mjwalshe 14y agoAnd CP/M was a bit of a clone of RT-11 from DEC fore the PDP 11's. Even some of the untiities where called the same name
- jt2190 14y agoI should have quoted the parent more fully: > No dependencies on anything (relatively speaking). More control over design & production of hardware than hardware companies. Software runs on their own hardware. It's the argument that Apple (in the beginning) had full control of their hardware when they had few/no resources that makes Apple (today) a poor example of how to "do it right" when you're starting a new product. Apple, too, had to navigate in a high-risk market full of established players.
- jt2190 14y agoI was muddling Apple and the other popular personal vendors of the time, many who licensed CP/M. (Commodore comes to mind.)
- beagle3 14y agoApple ran CP/M? in which universe? It didn't even have the right CPU without an add-on card (which was AFAIK the only way to run CP/M on Apple) Apple I, II{,e,/GS}, III, Lisa, and Mac before OS/X all had proprietary Apple-developed operating systems (in the general sense, including bioses, stuff like Apple DOS, ProDOS, Diversi DOS and others which don't look like modern operating systems). Applesoft basic was originally developed by Microsoft, and I'm sure other things were licensesd - but Apple had tight control of everything from 1978, with few exceptions at the time Jobs was not at the company.
- davidw 14y agoI think discussions like this are generally worse off when we talk about all the outliers, even though it's really hard not too, because they're the first thing that spring to mind. IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, etc... are not like ordinary businesses.
- netcan 14y agoI guess that depends on context. Some of the arguments for/against "building on someone else's platform" have to do with the potential to become an outlier.