Re: nice video about historical context of WebObjects

On May 13, 2015, at 10:58 AM, David Holt wrote: > In case you’re not on the FB group: > > https://vimeo.com/124391695 > > James Dempsey talks about WO influence in Apple, both the technology and the > people that used it heavily… > Ah, yes. Miss those times... James, the man who screwed up

nice video about historical context of WebObjects

In case you’re not on the FB group: https://vimeo.com/124391695 James Dempsey talks about WO influence in Apple, both the technology and the people that used it heavily… David ___ Do not post admin requests to the list

Re: historical context ...

Am 15.06.2007 um 09:13 schrieb Andrus Adamchik: Once WO got cheap, it didn't make any sense for those consultants to continue to push it. Imagine how many of the big 5 accounting firms would drop SAP if SAP where $249.95 ? Still the idea that the price drop caused WO being squeezed out of

Re: historical context ...

On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Mark Morris wrote: I also had the impression that WO was taken more seriously when it had high-end pricing. Interesting, isn't it? I find this to be generally true in our business; the more a client pays us, the more respectfully they treat us and the easier

Re: historical context ...

e: June 14, 2007 1:15:32 PM EDT To: WebObjects Apple Dev Subject: Re: historical context ... Poor choice of words on my part, I meant unlimited clients, per server. I also had the impression that WO was taken more seriously when it had high-end pricing. Interesting, isn't it? Regards, M

Re: historical context ...

Cheers Message: 3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:24:30 -0400 From: Ken Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: historical context ... To: Paul Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii&qu

Re: historical context ...

2007, at 1:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: June 14, 2007 1:15:32 PM EDT To: WebObjects Apple Dev Subject: Re: historical context ... Poor choice of words on my part, I meant unlimited clients, per server. I also had the impression that W

Re: historical context ...

price drop. So we end up where we are now. Hopefully, with WO 5.4 things will be better. Paul On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: June 14, 2007 1:15:32 PM EDT To: WebObjects Apple Dev Subject: Re: historical context ... Po

Re: historical context ...

Hi List, Yes; I was that guy asking the question, as we first proposed WebObjects to a client in July 1995! With Kind Regards, Dennis Gaastra, M.B.A.[sfu.ca], B.Sc.[ubc.ca] Chief Technology Officer, WEBAPPZ Systems, Inc. HQ: (+1) 604.921.1333 Fax: (+1) 604.921.4313 Cell: (+1) 604.787.253

Re: historical context ...

Poor choice of words on my part, I meant unlimited clients, per server. I also had the impression that WO was taken more seriously when it had high-end pricing. Interesting, isn't it? Regards, Mark On Jun 14, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Alexander Spohr wrote: I remember these prices: Developer:

Re: historical context ...

I remember these prices: Developer: $3000 Deployment: $100.000 (Per System, unlimited CPUs) Dep-Backup: $50.000 So there never was an unlimited deployment. And that where the best times for WO; you could sell it to the Big Players. After the price-drop no one took WO seriously anymore. It al

Re: historical context ...

As I recall (and I didn't start with WebObjects until 1997, so it could have been different in 1995 ;-), it was $50K for an unlimited deployment license. I believe the per developer costs were much, much less, but I can't remember specifics. -- Mark On Jun 14, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Cheong Hee

Re: historical context ...

It was once even voted by developers as the top 3 Java Developer Tools in one of the surveys, if I could recall correctly ... The price at that time was nearly USD40k per developer license! Wait a minute... On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Gavin Eadie wrote: The approach, which supports devel

Re: historical context ...

At 11:43 PM -0700 6/13/07, Gavin Eadie wrote: In one of today's WebObjects sessions at WWDC, it was asked how old WebObjects really is. Work started on it in 1994 and ... ... while I'm in a historical mood, here's one for today -- please excuse the diversion from normal business, but I actual

Re: historical context ...

On 14 Jun 2007, at 07:56, Janine Sisk wrote: Wait a minute... On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Gavin Eadie wrote: The approach, which supports development for Sun's Java, will allow programmers to vastly expand offerings on the Web, changing it from a fairly static medium to a more interacti

Re: historical context ...

Wait a minute... On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Gavin Eadie wrote: The approach, which supports development for Sun's Java, will allow programmers to vastly expand offerings on the Web, changing it from a fairly static medium to a more interactive one. Did it start out supporting Java, then

historical context ...

In one of today's WebObjects sessions at WWDC, it was asked how old WebObjects really is. Work started on it in 1994 and ... __ October 1995 According to Steve Jobs, CEO of NeXT, Inc., the future of the Web lies in dynamic information and increased inte