4 ms·

It's funny how the person being interviewed is the CEO of a company that makes products that require the same expensive, over-hyped crap that he says is keeping

by umjames 19y ago

It's funny how the person being interviewed is the CEO of a company that makes products that require the same expensive, over-hyped crap that he says is keeping "innovation" from happening in enterprise software. Otherwise, it's just more buzzword-compliant riggamaroll spewed by yet another clueless "enterprise" corporation. Enterprise software lacks innovation because it's doing all the things that startups know don't work. Expensive, closed, proprietary software running on over-hyped big-iron servers, purchased by idiot execs and managers, maintained by clock-watching office drones who are working for old-school face-time-focused companies.

comatose_kid 19y ago
Hmm...but amazingly, these companies are profitable. It is easy for technologists like ourselves to only think about...well...the technology. What about the psychology behind the decision process? A little thought experiment - say that you created enterprise software that worked perfectly, but was inexpensive, easy to use, and ran on a Commodore 64 (okay, or some low end PC). Would Cisco even let you through the door? Also, no matter how good the system you create might be, it still costs your customer time and retraining to implement and support your new solution. One last thing to think about (and to echo my first point) From Cialdini's 'Influence, Science and Practice': [Chivas Regal Scotch Whiskey] "had been a struggling brand until its managers decided to raise its price to a level far above its competitors. Sales skyrocketed, even though nothing was changed in the product itself (Aaker, 1991)"
- umjames 19y ago
  Which companies are profitable, the enterprise software companies or the corporations that buy their software, or both? I'm not blaming enterprise software companies for making money selling mediocre technology that doesn't work as well as advertised. I'm more upset with the companies that continue to buy such software, even when they know going in that it doesn't work as well as advertised. It's exactly what PG describes in his "News from the Front" essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html). A lot of these enterprise software companies rely on corporations trying to cover their asses by buying enterprise software from big companies. It makes everyone feel safer in terms of perceived job security, but does it actually work well? Most of the time, the answer is no. I'm not saying it won't take time to retrain people on better technology. I'm saying that, in a world where IT departments aren't seen as cost centers, better technology (meaning that it works well, is easy to setup and maintain, and is robust enough to work with other technologies not created by the same company) will yield better results in all aspects. I realize that IT departments and enterprise software vendors won't do such things. I guess that's why I come here so often.

by umjames 19y ago

comatose_kid 19y ago

Hmm...but amazingly, these companies are profitable. It is easy for technologists like ourselves to only think about...well...the technology. What about the psychology behind the decision process? A little thought experiment - say that you created enterprise software that worked perfectly, but was inexpensive, easy to use, and ran on a Commodore 64 (okay, or some low end PC). Would Cisco even let you through the door? Also, no matter how good the system you create might be, it still costs your customer time and retraining to implement and support your new solution. One last thing to think about (and to echo my first point) From Cialdini's 'Influence, Science and Practice': [Chivas Regal Scotch Whiskey] "had been a struggling brand until its managers decided to raise its price to a level far above its competitors. Sales skyrocketed, even though nothing was changed in the product itself (Aaker, 1991)"

umjames 19y ago
Which companies are profitable, the enterprise software companies or the corporations that buy their software, or both? I'm not blaming enterprise software companies for making money selling mediocre technology that doesn't work as well as advertised. I'm more upset with the companies that continue to buy such software, even when they know going in that it doesn't work as well as advertised. It's exactly what PG describes in his "News from the Front" essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html). A lot of these enterprise software companies rely on corporations trying to cover their asses by buying enterprise software from big companies. It makes everyone feel safer in terms of perceived job security, but does it actually work well? Most of the time, the answer is no. I'm not saying it won't take time to retrain people on better technology. I'm saying that, in a world where IT departments aren't seen as cost centers, better technology (meaning that it works well, is easy to setup and maintain, and is robust enough to work with other technologies not created by the same company) will yield better results in all aspects. I realize that IT departments and enterprise software vendors won't do such things. I guess that's why I come here so often.