David W. Fenton wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 at 18:03, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
Last year, we fought ferociously to get
ourselves out of the legacy problem -- advancing our platform 15 years
in the course of 12 months. Now we are determined to take full
advantage of the productivity that comes when you can get rid of that
legacy. It is abundantly clear to me that Finale is still slaving
under its legacy. We think of reinventing 5% of our system every
MONTH. Finale is reinventimg one percent of its system every YEAR.
Two entirely different worlds.
I don't know who "we" is, nor what kind of software it is you're
talking about, or how big a customer base you have, and how
restrictive you are on the environments and platforms your software
supports, but I do know that good code doesn't rust. If it's well-
designed and implemented well, it can last a very long time.
You seem to missing the point. You are talking about longevity. I am
talking about innovation.
Yes, of course bits do not deteriorate. Software written in 1990 can be
preserved indefinitely. However the changing world around that software
makes it less and less relevant every day.
There are many software vendors using the cash cow model -- Microsoft
office might be a great example. And if they can get away with minimal
innovation and still produce a nice revenue stream, more power to them.
That is Microsoft in a nutshell. However, the success of many software
ventures today depends on an ability to sustain a rapid pace of
innovation. Ebay/Paypal, eHarmony, SideStep and Carfax may be good
examples here. These are companies that succeed by innovation and their
ability to sustain rapid delivery of desirable features.
These companies most certainly do not operate on a "big annual release"
mental model. They are introducing valuable capability continuously --
just as soon as they can get it ready for market.
The software world you are describing is the mindset of the 1980s that
still traps a lot of companies. When one is laboring under a heavy
burden of legacy code, there may not be many alternatives.
As I see it, Finale is unable to deliver rapid innovation, but they also
have lack the strength to operate a cash cow model. As a person who has
at least a dozen Finale releases on the shelf, I get no pleasure in
observing that.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
