Agreed: No crippled systems, that is not the way to impress young programmers. Our educational and non-commercial licenses are only limited by the wording on the license agreement. We're not THAT worried that someone might pirate our software; the customers who use it commercially and need support GENERALLY play a very honest game. I REALLY look forward to the management meeting where money lost to piracy is at the top of the agenda - we'll be doing VERY well at that point.
Investing billions in education sounds like it might work. I'll be back for more advice when the bank account readout hits ten digits :-) Seriously: We're going to have to take a more low profile approach, I fear. I think that we'll have to give the educational licenses away, AND we must engage suitable university departments directly. And not the computer science departments, they have no interest in APL or J as it doesn't help them teach the subjects that they believe to be important. But almost any other natural science department, and some business schools, could benefit from APL, and that is where we shall aim our efforts. We'd also like to work with budding entrepreneurs in our community - spot the people with good ideas and engage with them to help them first make the code sellable / integratable, but then also help them sell and build a business using our professional network. And in some cases perhaps even invest cash for equity in startups - (this is how we make that billion you were talking about). This is another reason why we need to collect some money and build a larger organization. I actually think that - since the strength of APL and J is in the "doing" - the best way to grow the technology is to make sure that ventures based on the technology are successful. This takes time, but at the end of the day, a successful business based on APL or J is the best testimonial. Look what Google did for Python's credibility, for example. And this was (I think) very valuable to us; it helped cure the world of the idea that it was only a matter of time before all programs would be written in C++, C#, or Java. The climate for selling dynamic, functional array languages has improved dramatically since the 1990's. The real problem with APL and J remains that they are STILL ahead of their time. But the time is approaching now, I think... Get ready :-) -----Original Message----- From: Ian Clark [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28. maj 2009 19:58 To: Chat forum Subject: Re: [Jchat] No More APL Morten, Let me encourage you all I can to subsidise education. All I possibly can. But there are ways of doing it, and ways not to. In the 1980s/90s the British APL Association, along with some desperate vendors, released "educational" (=cheapo) versions of APL. Cut-down or crippled interpreters. Toy systems. Old releases. Few resources were expended on helping educational institutions use them. Those that toyed with APL were not the best -- and merely wanted a cheap tool of some power. That all did more harm than good to the APL cause. They saw it as seed-corn, but a seeded field needs cultivation, or the birds get it all. In the 1970s IBM, via its Scientific Centers, plus ASDD Mohansic, Yorktown, Zurich and San Jose Research Centers, invested $millions if not $billions in education. Higher education. They selectively targeted the best institutions. As a SC man I got to see all the toys they were playing with and -- hey presto! They're the mainstream, big-earners of today. VM. Intelligent Grid (Excel's grandpa). Relational databases. Packet-switching (->TCP/IP). RISC. The "WIMP" GUI. ...and APL on small computers. So IBM (and tomorrow the world) got a damn good deal out of IBM's investment. Sorry -- altruism. (But it took a generation to payoff.) Around 1983-4 Apple dished out free Macs to selected staff in USA universities. An explosion of inventive applications appeared, from epidemiology to Arabic studies (I speak from experience), So much so that I hardly ever see an application on Mac (or Windows) which didn't get conceived back then. The reason why Apple didn't reap trillions was because Bill Gates bust a gut, fought a massive long-running court case (the "look'n'feel") and developed first GEM then Windows to take the business off them. It took him 5 years, more like 10, and several bites of the cherry. But Apple is still industry standard and unshiftable in a number of market sectors -- like graphic design. The secret seems to be not to give away educational licenses, but to sell them dearly. Not for money but for the right to peer over the professors' shoulders. (And don't p*ss about with the also-rans.) Ian PS: I've a mind to send in the bill for that gem of commercial intelligence, should you ever benefit by it. ;-)) On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Morten Kromberg <[email protected]> wrote: > This is EXACTLY the reasoning behind our pricing scheme: We have the low > cost entry level (and free educational license), and suggest to customers > that the correct long term choice is the 2% royalty contract. > > "Socialism"? If you like... I hear the President of the United States is a > "socialist" these days, although us Scandinavians have a hard time > recognizing it ;-) > > We SHOULD make the non-commercial license free, but we haven't gotten the > hang of not giving support yet, so we're trying to be sure that the people > who pick one up are *really* interested, by charging them $75. We need to > streamline our organization a wee bit more and I think we'll be there. We've > released about 200 free educational licenses so far this year, and it hasn't > been a terrible burden. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Clark [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 28. maj 2009 01:11 > To: Chat forum > Subject: Re: [Jchat] No More APL > > Morten tells us that we shouldn't work for nothing. > > I do agree. > > But let's distinguish between routine / standard work, and pioneering work. > > Every routine activity has a rate for the job, and it is wrong / silly > / unethical / unbusinesslike to offer to work for below the going > rate. Any union will tell you that. So will any professional > association. Price-wars are destructive and ultimately benefit nobody. > > But a pioneer must not expect to be recompensed for the real value of > what s/he has gifted the world. That is something that can only be > judged in retrospect -- and infant mortality among pioneers is high. > So high in fact, that a pioneer cannot expect to be recompensed at > all. Unless the quest be its own reward. > > Now J (for me) is a tool for pioneering tasks. APL (for me) is a > "business" -- in every sense. > > Let me emphasise this is a personal view, born of my experience and > current needs. If my shoes don't fit you, please don't stand in them. > > Ian > > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Tracy Harms <[email protected]> wrote: >> Matthew Brand replied to Morten Kromberg: >> >>>> True. Dyalog is only "cheap and easy to install" >>> >>> It's cheap but not free. >> >> By the standards of most of the Linux world, J is not free either. I >> personally have no difficulty with J Software's implementation not >> being open source, but it's important enough to some that we should >> take care not to imply that it is in that category. >> >> Tracy >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
