----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:48 PM
>
> It may be of no importance to application hosters (if by that you mean
> essentially ISPs who will host whatever they can host as cheaply as
> possible), but I'd argue that developers, and people using applications, may
> care very much about who to call when they have trouble.
What I mean specifically, is that what really matters is productivity and cost
effectiveness. In the case of ASP and PHP free is about as cost effective as it
gets.
>
> More to the point, if you're concerned about the future of CF, you probably
> think that CF is a better product than PHP. Why is that? What makes it a
> better product? Could it be, perhaps, that there are people out there whose
> job it is to improve that product faster than other products get improved?
I think we all know the answer to that - in terms of development speed i.e.
productivity, CF is the best tool out there. I guess that contradicts my above
statement to a point - but it it horses for courses - what price productivity?
>
> On the enterprise side of things, is anyone using PHP for enterprise-wide
> applications? If not, why not?
Yet.
Ask the same question of ASP and in particular intentions for ASP.NET.
>
> No disrespect intended, but I think I understand perfectly what you're
> saying. However, I disagree. It is not all down to positioning. It is all
> down to making a return on investment.
Which in turn is down to positioning. You can have the best product inthe world,
at apremium price - but if no one purchases it you make 100% of nothing. ROI is
relative to all of the factors involved - not just one dynamic - price in this
case.
Your suggestion smacks of the general
> irrationality of the New Economy market. I think otherwise. If the product
> is worth using, it's worth selling.
Really - don't you think ASP is worth using? Internet Explorer? Outlook
Express?
If it can't survive as a salable
> product, it's not worth using as a shill to get us to buy other things.
> Companies like Microsoft can do that and survive - companies like Netscape
> (from your previous example) can't.
I disagree :-)
>
> Given that UltraDev can generate CF, ASP and JSP code, why should MM care
> then?
Why indeed? But as we have already said - CF could and should be the
development product of choice, and MM are in the best position to capitalise on
that by way of development tools.
>
> It seems that there's likely to be a relatively inelastic demand for web
> development in the future, now that the "fad" part is over. There are only
> so many editors that can be sold. Since MM's design tools already cater to
> multiple platforms (and in fact have generally been popular for those other
> platforms), why shouldn't CF stand on its own weight?
Because although CF is better, it is not better enough for it to stand on its
own weight - at a premium price.
>
> Finally, I'd be curious what percentage of web (internet/intranet)
> development money comes from ISP shared-server application development and
> hosting. My guess is that it's pretty small, but that's just my uneducated
> guess.
So would I.
I would also be most interested to see a breakdown of sales of Cold Fusion
Server (in all of its forms) and Ultradev.
Why? e.g. Because if CF was free, and a hundred times or more developers used it
as a direct result, (there might well be multiple developers, and multiple
licensed copies of Ultradev per server), and which resulted in the sales of a
hundred times or more copies of Ultradev - I would like to see where the most
profit would come from. My guess is that it would easily be the latter.
Adrian Cooper.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
