Re: Borlands linux strategy ?

Of course, but I apologize for not communicating my argument well. The
future sales model I'd like to see Borland help up move into involves
writing those servers you mention. With asp.net, we're still limited
to windows os servers.

I would agree, but why should those offerings be Delphi? What would be so awful for Borland, as a company, from a strategic perspective, to start a new product line that targets non-asp.net, non-windows development?

My point is that if you try to port Delphi, and what makes Delphi Delphi, to another development platform, it will fail. Like Kylix did. It did so IMO, because the development model, the culture, and to a lesser degree the technology itself was at odds with the Linux community. This is the main point of my argument for why Delphi is and should remain a Windows development tool.

So that's why FogBugz is delivered via a browser? That's the whole
point of SaaS, don't you see?

Of course I see the point of SaaS and browser based apps. I also recognize FogBugz switched from ASP to PHP for that purpose. It's hard for a software vendor to make any money from dev tools alone, especially in the ISV market. I doubt MS does it, I doubt IBM does it. I wonder how many licenses of Zend (or whatever PHP tool FogCreak uses, if they use one) they purchased? ;)

IMO the main strategies for dev tools vendors today are to: 1) expand services based on those technologies (like IBM, as Borland is doing with TeraQuest) or 2) earn revenue from the supporting products/technologies (like MS, with Windows/SQL Server/MS Office) or 3) target the corporate development houses where they buy software for internal IT work (IMO Delphi's bread and butter) or 4) get acquired by a larger company and sell out.

In the corporate environment, the ironic thing is that it's not about how capable technology stacks are: PHP is fairly capable, Ruby on Rails, IMO, is very capable. The main issue is if they will *pay* for the implementation within those stacks. From an internal IT perspective the only things that they will pay developers for are: Java and .NET. That's the reality of the market today, from my perspective. IOW, PHP guys are cheap. ;)

The ISV market is different from my perspective. When it comes to SaaS in the ISV market, it's more viable. The main issue with ISV's is that IMO, they don't spend as much money on tools. Often times, they use open source stuff, cobble things together in scripts, etc. The culture is different. And even if ISV's want to spend money on tools, they'll buy the lower end skus, and typically not as many of them since they don't have as many developers and those developers have a different mindset: I can build that, I'll have more control and independence, I don't have to deal with licenses, potential royalty fees, etc.

The reason why SaaS is more viable in the ISV market and the core technology isn't as important to the people spending money is that their market are buying a complete product. They just want it to run on their stuff, whatever that stuff is: Solaris, Windows, Linux, etc. As long as it works, that's fine; it can be hosted or deployed within their walls (some companies prefer one over the other). Since they are buying a product, those end-user companies don't have staff retention/recruitment fears, etc. that they would have if it were their corporate IT department building the application. Hence SaaS makes sense.

This of course, is a gross generalization with many counter examples, but that tends to be what I've seen and experienced in those environments.

In the future, even windows desktop
development is no longer the the most cost effective way to deliver
many business apps, because there's an even larger client-base, which
is the browser. Joel's argument isn't about Windows, but about the
platform which provides the most return for the development cost.

Sure. Which brings us to the point of what exactly do you want Delphi to be? A server-side tool specialized on cross-platform server development delivering RIA to any browser?

Hardly sounds like the market that *Delphi* has made money from historically. I'm not saying that it isn't being used for Web development, but IMO, it's bread and butter has been: client-server style apps, rich GUIs running on Windows. The things people love about Delphi are certainly more than that (native compilation, pure OO, solid non-visual library, etc); but that's not necessarily *why* it sells.

IMO, the reason why Delphi can compete at all in the server-side market has little to do with Borland's server-side libraries/frameworks, but more to do with the third party community (notably Intraweb and RemObjects) and support of MS's platform (ASP.NET). I can't imagine a Delphi-based SaaS product would be successful or help expand Delphi's marketshare.

If Borland is to take up the SaaS call to arms, why should they choose Delphi to address that market? If I were them, and wanted to do this, I'd leverage Java (possibly C#/Mono) in a big way and create a different product altogether.


But Borland has decided to go the "process" route rather than trying to profit off of dev tools where they have been killed by Eclipse and face extremely tough competition from Visual Studio. I don't blame them, I'm just hopeful they continue to invest in Delphi and that it remains a profitable product for them on Windows (which means the community continues to upgrade), and remains the best development tool for Windows (giving the community reason to upgrade). I have no delusions of granduer about Delphi. ;)

What
Joel's article does not take into account is market maturity and
competition levels.

It was written 5 1/2 years ago. ;)

The desktop os will lose relevance for the majority of business apps.
So will the server for that matter.

LOL. What's left? ;)

If somebody wants me to deploy on
his Linux box (like the whole country of China for instance), then I
should be able to at least consider a way to make that happen with my
favorite dev tools.

1) Do you have a product planed for China?
2) Do you know the Chinese market well enough to serve their needs?
3) Will Borland make more money with Delphi if they pursue Linux development or if they knock out .NET 2.0 and Win64?
4) There are no "shoulds" in life; there is only what you do and what you don't do. ;)

Let's be honest here; this is ultimately a project scope question. I believe in narrowing scope and focus to succeed well with a less ambitious project than to gamble with a large/expansive project. I also believe in targetting markets where you know the market; hence I'm not going to sell software into China.

I'm a bit more conservative in my judgements/sensibilities than you seem to be. I'm happy to make less money than risk everything for more money. I do consider myself a risk taker, always have been, always will be. I believe that those that know me would agree with that assesment.

But I'm also not (that) crazy or stupid in my risk taking. I'm not willing to advocate risking Delphi's future for SaaS, when I believe that even if Borland made Delphi one of the best SaaS tools out there, it would be more profitable if Borland pursued SaaS with Java or something more cross-platform to begin with. I just think the odds are too slim that a Delphi SaaS toolkit would make as much money as a different product. I think it's best for Delphi to focus on Windows development.

MSFT's whole future of software development
efforts depend on the notion that every developer includes Windows as
part of his deployment requirement in some form or fashion.

Yes, but that's MS, not Borland. ;)

MSFT has to move a lot of product to keep the lights on, so if some
huge emergning market does go with non-windows or that Windows on the
web thing, then provided MSFT is still interested in doing developer
tools, it will have to consider doing something like making a mono
that works, and then platform-agnostic development will suddenly
become the most reasonable move ever, because MSFT promoted it.

If that happens, that's MS' problem. Borland will have to decide what it wants to do with Delphi at that point too. I suspect at that point, they'll leave Delphi behind. Oh well, everything comes to an end.

See, this is what I don't get. Who cares if it helps or hurts MS?

MS does, and to some degree or another at our expense.

To some degree sure, but I buy MS products don't you? I buy Windows XP, I don't buy Office. That's business, you pay for a product because it gives you some value. Some of that value comes from network effects. Does that make MS evil? Not necessarily, it's good business to deliver a product that provides value and leverages network effects. (There are other reasons why MS is evil)

IOW, my *expense* I will happily pay, because I use Windows XP everyday. I earn my living building applications on Windows technology. That's like being upset that you have to pay for transportation costs because you need to get to work.

You're arguing
that Delphi as a win tool provides the best solution because the
universe of solutions are delivered via windows

Not all of the solutions, but in essence enough solutions for Borland to be profitable yes. That and the benefits of limiting project scope as mentioned before.

and, for all intents,
the universe is windows.

No. That's *not* what I'm arguing at all.

This is the second/third time I've said as much. Please stop saying that this is what I'm saying. That's a huge leap and it's starting to irritate me.

I would have agreed with this even a year
ago, but now I honestly think this mentality is holding us back from
more opportunity and more appropriate, maybe even more innovative
solutions.

Who's "us"? Borland? The Delphi community?

I presume you mean the latter. The Delphi community has been extremely fortunate in that Delphi itself is one of the most extensible, capable and balanced Development tools out there.

One point I agree with you whole heartedly is that there is a huge universe of technology out there, and a very diverse development landscape. But does the Delphi community realize this? I don't know. Some do, some don't. Does it matter? Probably not. I presume most of the active Delphi community is happy coding in Delphi. Some don't use DB's or build Web applications at all. They're still happy.

IOW, how is Delphi, even if it's a Windows only development tool holding the Delphi community back? They can explore other products, use other technologies and *still* use Delphi. Why does everything have to be Delphi everywhere all the time? IMO, it doesn't and it's unrealistic to think that it can or should be. I also don't think Borland needs it to be either.

IMO, all Borland needs to do is make Delphi better and keep it profitable. IMO, the best way to do that is to focus on its strengths, not address their weaknesses.

My point is, we exclusively favor MSFT at our expense.

I won't speak for others on the matter, but the reason why I favor MS is not at *my* expense. I prefer Windows to *nix. I like .NET over Java. Companies *pay* me to build stuff on Windows. Companies would pay me to build stuff in Java too, previously companies have paid me to write C++ code. I prefer to use Delphi and I prefer to develop on/for Windows.

Occasionally, some pay me to use whatever technology I want; in this particular case I've chosen Ruby on Rails. But that side project is what it is: a side project. It's not paying my mortgage, but I'm grateful for it, enjoy it very much and I really like the people I'm working with.

I don't favor MS at my expense at all. I favor them because I have actively chosen it. If someone feels like they are a victim of MS, then my advice, which I try not to give without being asked for it, is: seek alternatives. Go develop in Java; companies will pay you for that. Or, if money at this point in time isn't as important as working with something that you really love, then go do that. Most of the time, money will follow. Ultimately: Follow your bliss. Just don't whine about it to me. ;)

Now are you really serious with that statement, or did you just make
it because you knew you'd probably never develop for solaris?

No, I'm *very* serious about that statement. I have developed software for Solaris before, but would never actively choose to do so. ;) I've been fortunate enough that I don't *have* to develop software for Solaris to make a living.

But from a business perspective if the vast majority of my target market was running Solaris, I'd pick the appropriate tool for the job (not Delphi). But I would probably choose a different market/product simply because my heart isn't in developing software for Solaris. I'm a developer in my heart, not a business man. That's the difference.

I also recognize as a businessman, that there are so many markets and opportunities out there; and I might as well pick one that I'm passionate about.

Look,
arguing about a direction for Delphi I guess is really not that
important, but it is the dev environment that we love, and it's just a
selfish interest that I have for Delphi to be multi-target.

Sure, I would love it if Delphi was the market leading product, running on every platform out there, with the best compiler technology and most flexible component model, etc. But that's just not reality and my ego and personal desires won't change that no matter how hard I try or how loudly I complain.

The reality is that Delphi is a niche product for Windows Development. I love Delphi, and believe that it is the best Win32 development tool ever...and will be for all time.

But I have to chuckle when I hear complaints like "we had that first", or "they aren't innovative". The reason why is because it just doesn't matter. What matters is what is in the here and now. I see Visual Studio and .NET as the modern/mainstream implementations of Delphi, the ideas behind Delphi, the culture and even the *same* people that were behind Delphi are behind MS efforts. Isn't this what we've all wanted? If it were Borland's .NET framework, or Borland's Visual Studio, would we feel different?

True dat, but a handful of extremely bright part-timers with no
monetary incentive seem to have done fairly well with the exercise.

And Borland would make money from these bright part-timers working for free? Not a chance because of the philosophical and cultural differences. At what point do these bright part-timers feel exploited rather than served?

The fastcode project has a specific focus: make existing stuff faster. I assume, the reason why people work on that is because it improves their Delphi applications (which I presume many of them make their living from) and acknowledge that they are extremely generous with their time, moreso than I am.

But if it were more than making existing stuff faster, if it were say compiler development and they see Borland profit off their hard work without any return in their pocket, how long do you think that will last? Even if they were not able to make any money from their work on their own, I can't imagine they'd be happy with that kind of corporate charity/welfare. There's a reason why they slap GPL on their projects.

How would the level of difficulty be any higher than what FPC has done
in the first place?

It's not about the technical difficulty. It's about delivering a polished, professional, comprehensive product that makes money.

It's also incredible that AFAICS Tibco's GI only supports IE (at this

time).

But IMO, that's ok...it's a targetted solution that addresses over
90% of the market. ;)

You know they'll fix that.

And when they do, you'll have the UI portion of your SaaS framework. ;)

Not to take anything away from the FPC guys, but how many real-world

applications

are built with FPC? How many with Delphi? How much total money has
FPC put in the pockets of developers using FPC? How much money from
Delphi?

Why even pose these questions? The market is new and immature.

Because those are the kinds of questions that matter to me when I need to earn a living. Those are the questions that Borland must ask when looking to develop new product or expand existing ones.

That's not to say that new and emerging markets can't be profitable, but they are riskier. I just don't see Linux, in particular, as gaining enough marketshare for *Delphi* to be profitable there. Borland tried it, they failed. I think it's possible to be profitable on Linux with dev tools, but obviously not how Borland executed with Kylix. And it might not be profitable *enough* for Borland to do so; startups OTOH are different beasts.

How
many people drive hybrid cars? I'm ok with Delphi being a windows
hosted app, but eventually it's got to produce a hybrid car.

A lot of people drive hybrid cars. The important thing to remember is that Toyota and Honda make *money* off their hybrid cars. Can Borland make money is the only question that needs to be asked.

Not to further the horribly flawed analogy between software and the automobile industry, but notice that Toyota's most successful hybrid car is the Prius. Not a hybrid version of the Corolla. Why? because it's best to *focus* on the problem and *target* the market. They can get the highest MPG (save the manual transmission Honda Insight, another hybrid-only car), the lowest drag coefficient, the best integration of computer controlled electric/gas balance, etc.

Certainly hybrid technology is now making its way into Camrys, Accords, Civics and even SUV's, just as .NET has been worked into Delphi. But what are the most popular .NET languages? C# and VB.NET, languages that are specific to .NET. And yes, that is a specific MS example because Delphi doesn't support anything but MS technologies. ;)

No, actually I don't think that. I'm just not against dining at Bill

Gates'

table.

And you're paying for a seat.

Good one, but I'd gladly pay $10 for an all-I-can-eat buffet of food that I like to eat. ;)

Writing an application that consists of a backend that runs on more
than one os, and whose interface can be delivered via a browser is of
course, not the same thing.

If you want more than one OS, Delphi isn't your tool. Sorry, Java is way better for that purpose.

Now if I were in your shoes, the questions I would ask myself at this point are: Am I a Delphi developer in my heart or a SaaS developer? Am I more of a business man or more of a developer?

The answers to those questions will provide a good framework for making a real-world *decision* where there are compromises and tradeoffs. There's risk in every decision and risk in not making one at all; decision after all is derived from the same root as incision, hence it's gonna hurt. We can't ask Borland to make things easy for us all the time. ;)

--
Brian Moelk
bmoelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.brainendeavor.com


.

Loading