3 ms·
There's a great big whopping difference between the Adobe example and Facebook. One of them (facebook) the product is the network. It is inherently uncopyable.
by noonespecial 13y ago
There's a great big whopping difference between the Adobe example and Facebook. One of them (facebook) the product is the network. It is inherently uncopyable. The other (Adobe) the "network" is bodged on to try to extract just the "uncopyable" attribute without providing any value and, in fact, causing a great deal of value to be lost by invalidating many use cases of the product (archival, offline, etc).
Its not about copy protection vs not, its about how much of your customers' resources and goodwill you are prepared to burn and how much value you are prepared to subtract from your product in order add that "uncopyable" attribute.
Copy protection isn't free. If you choose it, its likely to end up being your most expensive feature to add and support while simultaneously making your product less valuable to your customers.
- justintocci 13y agoHow much of my customer's resources and goodwill we are prepared to sacrifice: none How much value we are prepared to subtract from the product: none Those questions are answered. The question we need answered is, what is best practice? Should we really try to go saas? Are developers going to feel comfortable entering their database credentials into a third party site? I think not. There must be an answer here, a sweet spot in the middle.
- justintocci 13y agoWhoa dude, I totally disagree with the statement that 'the network', which you refer to as the 'product' of Facebook is not able to be copied. In one sense, Google has made the entire Internet searchable. In another sense, I think it would be possible to put together a decentralized Facebook, sort of a specification for blogs, that could replace Facebook under the right conditions. I could go on.