I can sleep, no worries mate. It does however ring as a shortsighted and an inconsistent message of the brand. But that's just my opinion as a guy who makes these types of decisions. Though for much smaller clients than Adobe.
I feel masking the use of php on any CF branded Adobe pages (NOT "rewriting dozens of apps in CF") could probably be done for under 20k of internal resourcing. There's a number of ways to handle this either through code or through the webserver. URL rewrite anyone? To me that's a worthwhile decision. You may not think so. And that's fine. I won't be recommending you for a marketing manager any time soon. ;) I do wonder though why do so many of you seem to take the tack that if a company does (or doesn't do) something that it's both a) a fully thought out and analyzed decision and b) the right one. Many many companies, even monster companies, don't have a consistent corporate message. Many times things are half thought out if even that. It's not always a master plan as many here would indicate. "Oh Adobe did x? Well that's clearly because they've had exhaustive analysis and a master plan." Maybe they do have a master plan that includes using PHP on CF related pages. If so, I think it's a poor one. Here, let me fill in your responses: "Well no one knows their business better than Adobe. They know what they're doing much better than you. You are handsome Mr. Grant." On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Russ Michaels <r...@michaels.me.uk> wrote: > > Of course Michael we can see the advantage, it just isn;t keeping the rest > of us awake at night worrying about it. Your also still missing the point I > think. Sometimes it is simply not viable, economical, a good business > decision etc to do what you want. > > If you have the choice between a solution that can be deployed right now or > a solution that would take 12 months work and cost you shed loads of money, > which do you choose? > OK so you would probably choose the 12 month loads of $ solution, but in > those 12 months you have nothing running and are missing out on potential > business. > > And as has been pointed out, most of Adobe's site is actually written in > CF. > Honestly I think you are in a very small minority of people who cannot > sleep > because part of Adobe's site is not in CF. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz] > Sent: 28 January 2011 23:43 > To: cf-talk > Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive? > > > Am I in bizarro land? No one can see an advantage to (as others have > stated) > eating your own dog food? > > Before you know it Steve Jobs will be telling me to use Windows. > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Russ Michaels <r...@michaels.me.uk> > wrote: > > > > > I don't really think your analogy is relevant, No company would change > > their > > logo just because a couple of people don't like it but hat is hardly even > > similar. I know enough about marketing to know that you need a good > > business > > case to warrant spending lots of cash and man hours on something, it > needs > > to be a viable idea in some way, either to drive sales, profit, brand > > awareness. Usually "Because 3 people thinks it is a good idea", would not > > be > > considered a good business decision. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz] > > Sent: 28 January 2011 14:11 > > To: cf-talk > > Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive? > > > > > > I've already explained why to bother. The same argument could be made > about > > "Why bother changing a logo or a corporate brand?" I doubt any company > gets > > thousands of complaints about their current brand or logo. The reason is > > optics. If you aren't into marketing you likely won't "get" it. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Russ Michaels <r...@michaels.me.uk> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes but why bother? I'm sure if they were getting thousands of > > > complaints then they would do so just for some peace and quiet, but my > > > bet is that not many people really care. > > > My old cfdeveloper.co.uk site ran on ASP because I found a community > > > portal app that did the job, I received the odd comment from people > > > because it was ASP and not CFML, but out of the thousands of members > > > the site had, this was insignificant and not enough to bother me or > > > warrant me changing it. > > > > > > Russ > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz] > > > Sent: 28 January 2011 14:00 > > > To: cf-talk > > > Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive? > > > > > > > > > Fair enough. Though it's still kind of missing my point. My point is > > > that is Adobe doesn't use CF it should at least mask the use of other > > > technologies. > > > That's easy to do and fairly cheap. You can _look_ like you aren't > > > using php without much trouble. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Russ Michaels <r...@michaels.me.uk> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Wow, this is way off topic now eh! > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a well known saying "use the best tool for the job". And as > > > > Dave will agree, CF is not always the best tool for the job, and I > > > > guess Adobe themselves even know that, even Microsoft don't claim > > > > that Winodws/IIS is the best solution for every job. > > > > > > > > For example, If I want to write a custom app from scratch, or it > > > > needs to be something I can easily update myself then I would use CF > > > > every time of course as I know CF and I love CF. > > > > However if I simply want an App that does a specific/common job and > > > > I don't plan to get my own hands dirty in the code, I will first > > > > look to the open source world, and usually I will find a PHP > solution. > > > > For example, if you wanted to build a social networking community > > > > then there is really nothing like this for CF, you would have to > > > > write it yourself, which is a lot of work/time/cost. Or you could go > > > > and download ELGG, Dolphin or one of the many well-known PHP > > > > solutions and be up and running in no time. > > > > If you have the time and thousands of $ available to roll your own > > > > exactly how you want, then awesome, otherwise it is really a no > > > > brainer. And this particular scenario covers so many apps and > > > > situations, if you have a client who doesn't have the budget for you > > > > to write a CF solution and there is no open source CF solution, what > > > > do you do? Look outside the box for a solution that will fit the > > > > job/budget. > > > > > > > > It would be gr8 if CF had as many open source apps as PHP, but > > > > CFdevelopers tend to want to be paid for their work, which I guess > > > > is only fair if they had to pay for CF, plus of course the > > > > proportion of cfdeveloper compared to php developers is tiny, so > > > > clearly there is not as many people out there with the time or > > > > inclination to write OSS apps. > > > > Perhaps Railo/OBD will change this, but not by very much I reckon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com] > > > > Sent: 28 January 2011 06:40 > > > > To: cf-talk > > > > Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive? > > > > > > > > > > > > > This isn't actually true at all, Dave. To give one high profile > > > > > example, take Hotmail. Microsoft got a huge amount of shit for the > > > > > fact that Hotmail ran on Linux (or BSD? I think BSD) with Apache. > > > > > Sure, they bought Hotmail and that was the primary reason. But > > > > > people kept saying "oh, Windows and IIS can't handle the load so > > > > > they have to stick with BSD". There were plenty of tech articles > > > > > about whether Microsoft could actually run Hotmail on Windows, how > > > > > expensive it would be, etc. Finally, MS eventually moved it over > > > > > but they had to put significant time and energy into the project. > > > > > They even announced that they had moved it to Windows only to have > > > > > to retract that statement a couple days later, admitting that some > > > > > of the bits still ran on BSD. I seem to recall that MS totally > > > > > fucked up Hotmail in the move as well but that could have been > > > > > some of their other major screw ups. > > > > > > > > Microsoft acquired Hotmail in 1997. They migrated it to Windows in > > > > 2000/2001. Apparently, they didn't feel the need to do this very > > quickly. > > > > And I think there's a significant difference. At the time, there was > > > > a real, open question about whether Windows could fill this niche. > > > > Current versions really couldn't. NT 4 and IIS 3 and 4 weren't > > > > capable of doing this. But no one doubts that, say, the free RIA > > > > tools site could be written in CF. Large parts of the main Adobe > > > > site are, in fact, written in CF. > > > > > > > > > Eating your own dogfood is still an important concept in the tech > > > > > world and I think you sell it short. > > > > > > > > Adobe has a lot of different dog food, though. They have CF, > > > > LiveCycle, Day Software, and Contribute/Dreamweaver. Which one of > > > > those > > > should they pick? > > > > As a tools vendor, they make products that explicitly are designed > > > > to interact with Java, ASP.NET and PHP: > > > > Dreamweaver, Flash Builder, LiveCycle Workbench. The Flex team > > > > probably has more customers using PHP than CF. The Flash team > > > > certainly > > > does. > > > > > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > > > http://training.figleaf.com/ > > > > > > > > Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA > > > > Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized > > > > instruction at our training centers, online, or onsit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:341677 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
