That's flawed logic. Let's assume we do compensate folks for ideas. Firstly how does one differentiate the idea from the actual usage. In that should we just cut a blank cheque per idea? - what's the expected amount to be paid and does personsA idea get more than personsB idea? More to the point how do we further know whether or not personA was inspired by personB's idea (they should get compensation). Let's impose a tax & patent system on potential ideas.
Then once the potential becomes reality, in that the ideas are put into the runtime and introduced into the worlds install base. Do we then carve out an amount for our time in marketing and development? (as those engineers in Redmond etc don't work for free) Should we then impose a tax per usage on all developers in its use - more to the point, how does one gauge which parts are being used and which ones aren't as with a large number of features already in place, doesn't mean that everyone's used 100% of them. Oh also we should really have this on a context based compensation position, as who's to say FeatureX didn't lead to the use of FeatureY and so shouldn't the owners of that feature also be compensated? Now comes the scary part, once this precedent is put in place, than what's to say other companies - our competitors - don't fall victim to this model. Next thing you know, innovation is starved, software industry spirals down to a 2008 "good old days" and ideas are bided against on eBay - but then how does one really articulate they have the "killer idea"... is it a case of "I have a killer idea, bidding starts at 20,000 USD - will tell you once you win bid". Silky, you appear to think you have the angles all figured out but in reality you're not informed. The Evangelists for example are effectively a workforce self-funded so that you - are kept informed via our events, presentations or indirectly via MVP's etc that we work closely with. If you wanted to breakdown what part of the Sales vs. Marketing component Evangelism falls under, it's in fact marketing (just like all Evangelists in all companies worldwide). The idea also behind Evangelists are to ensure the customer and business are connected, and that's why Evangelists work closely with partners/community. Frank Arrigo is a prime example of this, try and figure out how he made Microsoft millions by connecting people who suddenly got unemployed to employers, all so they could keep working on what they loved and chose to do as a career. We aren't a company focused on nickel and diming everyone we see and always looking for a quick buck. As that's sure, a short term win but in the end long-term loss (buyers remorse happens fast). It's simply a case of build a platform & tools, put our best ideas and technology first, pause, take customer feedback and look at ways to meet their next wave of expectations (Rinse, Lather & repeat). So... Anyone else with some ideas around Silverlight 3 and what THEY would LIKE to see in it :), my inbox is always open. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of silky Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 1:51 PM To: listserver@ozsilverlight.com Subject: Re: [OzSilverlight] Silverlight 3.0 wishlist, now's your chance. On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Nick Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "why should they be the only ones to benefit?" - ummm let me see wrong! who actually talks like that? anyway, yes, of course the developers (us) benefit too, but only to a degree. and arguably not as much as microsoft. why are you trying to fight me anyway, when all i'm suggesting is that people offering ideas should be rewarded for their time spent thinking about and proposing ideas; and the experience they have used to come to those decisions. don't pretend that the only reason microsoft has these 'evangelist' type people is to benefit the community; it's to benefit themselves; by helping improve their products (good) and make more money for the company (fine, it's a business after all). so if it makes them money [the idea] why shouldn't the proposer of the idea get a share? your argument is because it helps that person too. well fine, if they don't want the money, then have it given to a charity, but why should ms get it? if it's an idea they wouldn't have considered otherwise? niceness? pfft, come on. > They > clearly aren't the only ones to benefit. Every feature that a vendor > implements of course makes their product more saleable but in the end it is > us, the consumers that really benefit. Sure if they were genuinely abusing > a market position to push products down our throats (no mention of a certain > company that makes shiny white products) then it would be a different kettle > of fish. > > > > If MS could implement even half the features the community suggests we would > have products that are infinitely better than they are. no not at all; not all features help, a lot just plain suck and would make the languages/environments worse. > Oh, and while we are talking about wishlists - how about dropping Blend > altogether and just pushing those features back into VS where they belong > ;-) At the moment we have what seems a very contrived separation of context > with designers being able to do developer tasks in Blend while developers > are unable to do their job without Blend! -- http://lets.coozi.com.au/ There's not a problem I can't fix, because I can do it in the mix. ------------------------------------------------------------------- OzSilverlight.com - to unsubscribe from this list, send a message back to the list with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Powered by mailenable.com - List managed by www.readify.net ------------------------------------------------------------------- OzSilverlight.com - to unsubscribe from this list, send a message back to the list with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Powered by mailenable.com - List managed by www.readify.net
