On Thursday, August 1, 2002, at 05:37 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I'll reply in-line
Me too!
>
>> There are lots of web developers out there (myself included) that
>> use Macs.
>
> Yes, client side. Not server side.
Yes that is exactly what I an talking about -- there are quite a few
good developers using Macs, even
though they can't deploy on Macs
>
>> Many develop applications that are hosted by outside services.
>
> Once again, client vs. server.
same as above
>
>> Those who develop in CF develop apps that will be run on CF servers
>> on some platform.
>
> That's a given
>
>> Point 1 -- These Mac developers contribute to CF sales
>>
Here you missed the point, or just decided not to respond to it.
>> Many Mac developers do *not* write Web programs for CF because they
>> cannot run CF on a
>> local machine -- they are more productive in Java, PHP, Perl,
>> whatever.
>
> I would beg to differ. OS/X is a recent development, ie: last
> year. This means that it is so new, that for many developers, their
> "feet" for server side deployment and application design are not quite
> balanced on the deck yet.
>
I have been writing Web apps on a Mac since 1997 -- My biggest mentor
was doing the same years before me.
I wrote mostly Perl, and yes I could test the Perl programs on the
Mac -- you could even kludge together a web server that server
Perl/html. Perl CGI was probably the dominent Web programming language
at that time-- CF was the young, new kid, that wasn't quite mature
enough to be widely accepted.
> Not to mention, in an ideal environment, you DEPLOY your
> application to a development machine. Not to the local machine. You
> should not test your applications on a server which DOES NOT mimic your
> production machine. This means if you develop on a WindowsXP machine,
> but deploy to a Win2k box, something has gone wrong. It should be
> develop on WinXP, deploy to TEST server (running win2k), verify
> everything still works as is, then redploy to live machine.
>
> ::shrug:: Just me being retentive again. I'm a Linux junkie. I develop
> on windows, or OS/2, or BeOS, or OS/X, etc, deploy to a test linux
> server, verify the code runs, then redeploy to production.
>
Not all developers have (or need) the luxury of having access to an
ideal development environment with several machines and the target
environment, database, etc all deployed on these separate machines.
How many independent contractors have the wherewith all to put together
such an environment -- the time and expertise would kill any
income-producing ability.
Form the CF-Talk list and others, I suspect that the majority of CF
developers are small shops or independent contractors. Likely, these
are the ones who are fueling the majority of CF installations.
I have written CF apps on a Mac and deployed them on win / unix boxes
without problem.
>> Point 2 -- These Mac developers are contributing to the sales of
>> MM's competitors
>>
>>
Another point!
>> The port of the Developer system to Mac OS X alleviates this
>> problem to some extent --
>> Likely, independent contractors like myself will jump at the chance
>> to run CF locally. This
>> should increase their productivity and they should be able to
>> deploy more apps to supported
>> CF platforms.
>
> So do BSD developers, Mandrake, Slackware, etc. How many actual
> corporate application servers have been ported to OS/X. Barely ANY, if
> any at all. You can run PHP and PERL. The same theory applies to the
> other niche market Unix/BSD world.
>
I am talking about a Developer system here -- it obfuscates the issue to
respond with an argument about corporate application servers -- not the
same issue.
> We CANNOT port to every single platform where we have any sort of
> competitor, we do not have the in house staff capable of doing so. The
> sheer resources needed would be astronomical.
>
I realize that, but I think a Developer system on Mac OS X would be a
minor port and a minor support issue. As I mentioned later, making this
Developer system a supported product is a relatively easy and
inexpensive way to test the market for the OS X platform.
>>
>> Point 3 - Availability of an unsupported developer system on OSX
>> will likely make a
>> contribution to CF sales and detract from competitive sales
>>
Another point.
>> The fact that the port is unsupported means that it takes a lot of
>> cajoling, wheedling (not bribes),
>> and time (especially time) to get problems fixed, or even addressed.
>>
>> Likely, there will not be mass acceptance of CF as a development
>> platform, by Mac users, until
>> there is a supported developer platform -- CF running locally, not
>> just DWMX*
>
> This is misnomer. Who says mac users will suddenly "See the Light"
> and start developing CFML when we port an application *server* to a
> primarily CLIENT-SIDE operating system?
>
Again, you are using a server-side argument against a client-side
issue. I am talking about a Developer system. All I am saying here, is
that you will get more Mac CF developers if you have a supported
product & not require the developer to do an ugly, non-supported port.
Many Mac shops wonder whether MM is really serious about the Mac -- all
they have is Flash and DWMX (and DWMX is not as complete as on other
platforms).
I actually think if MM were to flesh out DWMX on the Mac and make CFMX
Developer available on the Mac then this would drive DWMX Mac sales --
as it is now, there is little advantage in DWMX over BBEdit.
> It's like developing a copy of dreamweaver to, say, Tru64. Your
> porting a client side application to a server side OS. Same applies to
> Linux, Solaris and BSD.
>
Jesse, why did MM come out with a free Developer version of CF? --
certainly not to run it on the server- side. I assume MM wanted to make
it easier for developers to develop client-side and deploy server-side--
where MM will sell Full CF Web Application servers for big bucks.
Many will agree that it was a brilliant strategy to have a free
developer version, All I am trying to say here is: why not make that
same developer version available to Mac users -- the same logic applies
about driving server-side sales.
>
>> * It's ironic that DWMX on the Mac contributes to the sales of CF
>> competitors -- Mac users can
>> develop in competitive languages that *do* run on the Mac, while
>> CF does not.
>
> No, empowering the user is what Macromedia is about. Therefore, selling
> client-dev applications contributes to total revenue for Macromedia,
> which makes us happy.
The CF Developer system is a client-side development system -- and so
supporting it on the Mac will have the benefits you describe.
>
> This does not mean that we should force CFML down the throats of Mac
> developers by removing functionality in DWMX to force them to use the
> new shiny CFMX for OS/X.
>
Exactly! But, you can use it to showcase development for a superior
platform CFMX, and show superior development productivity (if a CF
Developer system is available) -- programmers will see for themselves
that developing on CF (and maybe DW) for CF is more productive
(profitable) regardless of the ultimate deployment platform.
>
>
>> Point 4 - Lack of a supported CF Mac developer platform will likely
>> detract from CF sales and
>> contribute to competitor sales.
>>
Another point.
>> Those who have used CFMX on Mac OS X (I know most of them) think
>> that is a sweet system --
>> superior to the other available options. I can't make this
>> statement, because I have never
>> developed on a Win, Solaris or Linux box.
>>
>> I can give this opinion: CFMX ON Mac OSX is the *Best* Web
>> Application development system,
>> running on the *Best* Operating system running on the *Best*
>> Personal Computer.
>>
>
> I can give this opinion: CFMX on Linux is the best Web Application
> development system, running the *Best* Operating system running on the
> *Best* Personal computer.
>
> I betcha 30$ that my Linux workstation (Dual Pentium 4 1.4 GHZ, 2
> gigs of Ram, an brand new Radeon card) running a very customized
> version of Gnome could blast away most of your OS/X apps in speed. Not
> to mention, running VMware, I have access to those windows application
> I need.
>
>
Here we are in a pissing contest -- nobody wins, and if we aren't
careful, we both get wet!
I now use a G4 TiBook widescreen laptop CD-RW, DVD, single 800GHz cpu,
500 Meg RAM 40 Gig Hard disk, Airport card and Base station-- cost
$3500 .
The largest Macs (presently) have Dual 1GHZ G4's. From what I have
read, these equal or out perform the competition in most things due to a
different architecture 1 GHZ Mac roughly equals 2 GHZ Intel.
AFAIK, IBM uses the same PPC CPU (they are one of the manufacturers) in
their servers.
BTW, the original port of CFMX to Mac OSX was done on an old 333MHZ iMac
with 96Meg RAM and 6 Gig Hard disk -- it works quite well as a CFMX
development machine -- I finally bought the TiBook so I could develop
while away from home (due to a family emergency).
> What you just said was opinion, I know, but look at the flip side
> of the coin.
>
>> Many will agree with me.
>>
>> Some simple test results, a few discussed in recent threads, show
>> that that Mac platform performs
>> quite well, and is price-competitive, if not superior.
>
> To Intel? Never. 3.5k for a basic workstation is *not
> competitive*. Of course, I'm also a Linux/Intel Zealot. Heck, I run
> windows at home on an Alienware intel machine for gaming.
>
Comparing GHZ isn't valid -- an 800 GHZ Mac will routinely outperform a
1+ GHZ Intel
A basic workstation is available for under $1000
The new iMac quite a bit more than basic, under $2000:
$1,999.00
Super Drive CD-RW DVD-R
17-inch widescreen LCD flat
800MHz PowerPC G4
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
256MB SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K internal modem
Apple Pro Speakers
Wireless-ready
There are laptops in the $1199 - $3999 range with quite a few steps
within that range.
> The market saturation for Mac's is not even close to that of
> intel, this is a sad, but true, fact.
>
True, but the Mac is now has the largest 'Nix install-base of
workstations -- about a year after their entry into the market
>> Point 5 -- Likely MM is missing an opportunity to proselytize Mac
>> developers to CF, to their
>> detriment and to the advantage of their competitors.
>>
Another point!
>> If MM were to offer a supported Developer version of CF on Mac OS
>> X, it would likely be the
>> easiest, and fastest to install. Mac OS X already includes (has
>> installed), Java and Apache Web
>> Server. These are not necessarily installed on the CF supported
>> platforms. A good part of every
>> CF install (and many of the problems during beta) involve
>> installation of Java, a Web Server, and
>> integrating these things with the CFMX/JRun systems.
>
> Incorrect. We ship an internal JRE. The OSes we support come with
> Webservers by *default*.
On Linux you have a choice on the developer system Use the MM-supplied
default Web Server, or integrate one that you already have installed, I
have not messed with the win distributions. Incidentally, I think that
it is a good thing to have these things (including db server) in the
package so Developers don't need to do a lot of prerequisite installs.
Its Just that on the Mac, you could take advantage of what is always
there and have a much easier, more robust install.
>
> By bringing out OS/X, Apple is JUST catching up to the curve.
That is true, they have caught up and passed the other 'Nix workstations
in installs - and Every Mac OS X comes with Java, Apache, PHP, Perl,
etc. already installed. You can install Tomcat in 15 minutes.
Likewise, a free trial version of WebObjects (Much more mature than
JRun, but lacking J2EE). Some serious Java developers are quite
impressed.
>
>> Mac OS X has a proven, well-defined, automatic process that
>> maintains and applies software
>> updates -- this include everything from updates to the underlying
>> OS to 3rd-party application
>> programs such as Microsoft IE.
>
> Yes. However, so does Linux, windows, BSD, etc, etc.
Really, does Linux provide/install updates for Microsft browsers -- or
is that just for open-source stuff?
Does MM take advantage of this capability for its products?
>
>> I suspect a CFMX product on Mac OS X would cost MM less to support
>> and maintain, than on
>> other platforms -- there is just a lot less code and a lot less
>> integration -- a complete, stable,
>> predictable platform.
>
> And a lot less market penetration.
Maybe a bigger penetration of a smaller market?
>> Point 6 -- Costs of supporting CF on the Mac OS X platform would
>> likely be less than other
>> platforms. This means different numbers would be plugged into the
>> ROI calculation.
>
> Incorrect. It would be the *same* as the other platforms.
So, do you say that having to support a JRE, and Web Server, and
installation integration programs have no cost? You would not have to
distribute/support these on the Mac.
>
>> If MM offers a Developer version of CFMX on Mac OS X, they will
>> likely find an eager audience of
>> potential *new users* of CF.
>
> Yes, this is true.
>
>> Apple will likely promote the availability of CFMX Developer on
>> Mac OS X. MM could defray
>> much of the marketing costs -- others will gladly do it for you.
>
> Maybe. Who knows?
I think the odds are pretty good that they will.
>
>> This might be a simple, inexpensive way of "sticking your toes in
>> the water" to measure
>> acceptance and potential without incurring a lot of costs.
>
> Ah! But who takes the support calls? What happens if we decide to drop
> OS/X? How many developers do we loose then?
I didn't say it would be free, just inexpensive -- if the Mac Users were
few, 1-3 people for support (likely less, 'cause the CFMX/JRun/Java
issues are largely the same accross all platforms)-- the Mac people
would be needed for Mac-Specific problems (and speaking from
experience, there are relatively few Mac-specific problems).
If the Mac users were many, this would be an indication that MM may be
missing a significant opportunity!
If you drop support for a few developers, you may loose them, but you
just may have converted them to CF.
If you drop support for many developers -- that's a business decision
that you evaluate and live with.
>
>> Point 7 -- Costs of marketing CF on the Mac OS X platform would
>> likely be less than other
>> platforms. This means different numbers would be plugged into the
>> ROI calculation.
>
> Incorrect, it would be the same.
I disagree, Apple will help, the trade press will help. You have a
virgin market, unsullied by you or your competitors -- but there is a
window. The Merchant of Venice comes to mind ("Tides", not "Bottoms").
We are still talking about a Developer Tool here!
>> Given, a supported CFMX Developer version for Mac OS X, there would
>> likely be much pressure
>> to release a supported CFMX production version(s) --- and the
>> problem with this is???
>
> The problem is that mac's have not "broken into" the server side market.
I agree, specialty installations, mainly -- but that can change.
Wouldn't it be nice to be positioned to ride that wave when/if it comes.
>
>> These sales would be *New Business" full price sales, not upgrades
>> from prior sales.
>
> And much like other new platforms, would quickly plateau to a given
> amount of users therefore tapering off revenue into a steady stream.
> You'd have 1 good quarter, and the ones after that would be "eh".
I agree about plateaus, but I think there would be more than one, over a
longer period of time.
The key is: does the incremental cost achieve enough benefits and ROI
to make the risk worthwhile?
It may be that increased Mac OS X DWMX revenue (brought about by a CFMX
supported product) would make this decision easier.
>
>> Again, emergence of this "Full" product would realize the same (if
>> not more) benefits of the
>> Developer product on Mac OS X -- lower maintenance and support
>> costs; lower marketing
>> costs; a potential customer set that is willing and able to buy;
>> likely heavy promotion by Apple;
>> the *buzz* of the industry in all the trade pubs; a plethora of
>> new books, articles, training,
>> certification and other services.
>
> Possibly, yes. How many Cf-Linux/Unix books are there? How many trade
> publications talk about how great CFMX/Unix-linux is?
The more MM keeps CFMX in the minds of potential buyers,
decision-influencers, and yes, developers -- the more sales they should
realize.
>
> Trust me, I've dealt with nothing BUT niche markets since I cam here 3
> years ago.
Niche markets can be profitable, for all involved: the manufacturer; the
user; the providers of support services, etc. Niche markets often are
part of a transition to a broader market. Not too, long ago, CF was a
niche market. Obviously, your presence (and that of many others) has
contributed to CF becoming a Market Leader,
>
>> Point 8 -- Likely MM should evaluate CFMX on Mac OS X as they would
>> any new product in
>> a new market. There is a potential here, to create, and dominate a
>> very profitable market.
>> Sometimes you have to not go by the procedures, take the risks, do
>> the best justification
>> you can -- and then take action
>
> Trust me, I know. I'm playing devil's advocate.
Well done!
>
>> If Jeremy Allaire, hadn't done so, we would all be doing different
>> things.
>>
>
> "zing"
Some final words. While I was responding, my Pearl of the Day arrived.
This from a web site (actually 6 sites) that was ASP/MS-Access. I
converted this to CF SQL-Server, back on CF 3.0 -- One of my early
penetrations into the CF niche market.
The Pearl seems apropos:
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead
where there is no path and leave a trail." -
Ralph Waldo Emerson -
Dick
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
