FYI. Begin forwarded message:
> From: Alex Horovitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon May 27, 2002 01:58:27 PM Europe/Zurich > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Steve Jobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], toni Trujillo-Vian > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, WebObjects > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [OT] An "Open" Letter > > An open letter to Apple on why many people want an open source > WebObjects and EOF. > > -------Reader's Digest Version----------------- > > Four reasons why Apple should open source WO/EOF: > > REASON #1: WO/EOF cannot be legitimate extensions of the Apple brand, > its value to the marketplace is only achieved through independence from > the Apple brand proper. Placing WO/EOF under an open source license > allows Apple to retain control. It also allows legitimacy to and > adoption by those who would not normally accept or adopt an Apple > product in this space. > > REASON #2: Because debugging is highly parallelizable, an open source > WO/EOF will increase the number of debuggers and therefor increase the > stability of the product over the long run by applying the skills of > many more engineers than Apple could ever hope to support as employees. > With a large enough user/co-developer community, all bugs can be > quickly quantified and understood allowing a fix to become obvious to > at least one member of the community. > > REASON #3: If Apple will treat the WO/EOF user community as if we were > their most valuable resource in terms of current and future development > of the product, we will become their most valuable resource. Trusting > us enough to share the source in an open source fashion, will benefit > Apple (and the application server market) in ways they cannot even > begin to imagine. > > REASON #4: Because there is no accounting for taste. That was the first > lesson of applied microeconomics my college professor taught me, and it > holds true today. Apple, as smart and cutting edge as it may be, cannot > anticipate the ways in which WO/EOF will be utilized or improved upon > by people in the field. Open source allows for faster innovation and > the ability to capture truly useful and novel ideas. > > ---------Unabridged Version---------- > > The first question Apple must address is one of business sense. Does it > make good business sense to open source any technology, let alone > WO/EOF. We have some evidence that at least in one case, Darwin, it > made sense to open source a key Apple technology. > > Now granted, this is an attempt to position Mac OS X against Linux in > some key market segments. That being said, a case was effectively made > and bought off on by key Apple people. Can we do the same for > WebObjects? Sure we can. > > WebObjects is not a clear legitimate extension of the Apple brand. I > suspect that everyone knows this to be true. I also suspect that this > gives Apple some pause in terms of being able to evangelize/market the > product at the level which would allow it to attain a respectable > position in the application server market. And, before you say that a > large company like Apple can't really afford to open source a software > project like WO/EOF, consider that IBM has done it for WebSphere. > > An open sourced WO/EOF could avoid the traditional problems Apple faces > in the area of brand extension. This is because Apple Engineering > enjoys legitimacy as an "outstanding" software organization. As > technologies, WO/EOF both enjoy reputations for being excellent > products. However, in terms of adoption, they suffer due to the > disconnect between the enterprise application server market and Apple's > traditional self branding. > > REASON #1: WO/EOF cannot be legitimate extensions of the Apple brand, > its value to the marketplace is only achieved through independence from > the Apple brand proper. Placing WO/EOF under an open source license > allows Apple to retain control. It also allows legitimacy to and > adoption by those who would not normally accept or adopt an Apple > product in this space. > > From experience, we all know there has _never_ been a bug free release > of WO/EOF. Apple's WO/EOF customers face the same challenge in this > respect: given the new release, what bugs will it have that will > prevent me from moving to that release; and, what bugs in my current > release does it fix that would encourage me to move to that release. > Also from experience we know there to be a significant time in between > releases. > > The non-open source development style is the culprit here. Apple is > passionate about release good stable software. Before a product can go > out the door there is an extensive amount of QA and testing. This being > the case, and with a goal of minimizing shipping bugs and maximizing > stability of releases, it takes time to get to a point where > collectively Apple feels it can ship the product. > > The experience of the open source community is quite the opposite. > Ironically, if you possibly sacrifice stability in the short term (a > given release) with many iterative releases, you gain greater stability > in the long run. How does this happen? Well, you are leveraging a > community of people who will act as your eyeballs. Each person > motivated by differing interests, and thus self-selecting in terms of > areas of the project they will focus on, will begin to look at the > code base. In short, you are no maximizing the number of person hours > devoted to debugging and developing the software. > > REASON #2: Because debugging is highly parallelizable, an open source > WO/EOF will increase the number of debuggers and therefor increase the > stability of the product over the long run by applying the skills of > many more engineers than Apple could ever hope to support as employees. > With a large enough user/co-developer community, all bugs can be > quickly quantified and understood allowing a fix to become obvious to > at least one member of the community. > > What every product needs is a loyal customer base. Nothing in this > world breeds loyalty faster than giving some indication that one trusts > another to deal with the details of great importance. In the case of > software this is the code base. > > A panel of people looking at the same problem, no matter their skill > set, will be able to give a significantly more reliable answer than one > of those people chosen at random. I am ashamed to introduce it here, > but think of "Who wants to be a millionaire." The most reliable > lifeline is the "ask the audience" lifeline. It leverages what > sociologists call the delphi effect; and, even though the questions are > random, the audience's ability to provide the correct answer when > polled approaches 100%. Imagine if Apple harnessed the power of their > WO/EOF community to solve bugs and select future features that way! > > REASON #3: If Apple will treat the WO/EOF user community as if we were > their most valuable resource in terms of current and future development > of the product, we will become their most valuable resource. Trusting > us enough to share the source in an open source fashion, will benefit > Apple (and the application server market) in ways they cannot even > begin to imagine. > > At the end of the day, it all boils down to simple economics. > > REASON #4: Because there is no accounting for taste. That was the first > lesson of applied microeconomics my college professor taught me, and it > holds true today. Apple, as smart and cutting edge as it may be, cannot > anticipate the ways in which WO/EOF will be utilized or improved upon > by people in the field. Open source allows for faster innovation and > the ability to capture truly useful and novel ideas while minimizing > risk. > > Apple, please move WebObjects and EOF to an open source model and allow > us to materially participate in the success of the product line. You > can expand your engineering base without significant cost to Apple. You > will gain market share for your product and avoid diluting the Apple > brand. This move is a win for Apple and a win for your loyal WebObjects > and EOF developers. > > Best Regards, > > Alex > > -- > Alex Horovitz > EVP & CTO > > F2F Group, Inc. > 36 Nason Street, 2nd Floor > Maynard, Massachusetts 01753 > > Phone: 978 897 1112 x225 > Fax: 781 735 0534 > Cell: 617 593 0247 > > http://www.f2fgroup.com > > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one > persists in > trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends > on the > unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw >
