>>It doesn't fit nearly as well since it has a utility focus via the net. This may not be wrong but we and likely others still have roots in the desktop "mostly" stand alone design.<<
I am not sure I understand your concern. I use MapXtreme 2004 only for desktop and like it a lot. Much better than the old MapX and with a very nice new object model. As I can see it (can't see everything:) MapXtreme 2004 is the most advanced (but not difficult to develop with) mapping component available on the market. >>And as far as I can tell that business model for a developer, a low cost component engine, is also going away? I hope not.<< As I recall both the sdk and licensing cost is about the double of MapX. But with MapXtreme 2004 you only need one SDK, where MapX needed a SDK for every different solution you created. So if you create many different solution to a few customers its cheaper than the old MapX. >>It allowed us to step back from proprietary MapBasic and related limitations allowing us to move deeper into the component design as well as XML data structures.<< I cry every time Peter H.M. puts MapBasic jobs on my desk (because he thinks it more funny doing GIS in the Caribbean, Trinidad). Mvh. | Regards Jakob Lanstorp Senior Consultant Geographical Information & IT COWI A/S Odensevej 95 DK-5260 Odense S Tel +45 99 36 77 00 Direct +45 99 36 77 86 Fax +45 99 36 77 01 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cowi.dk -----Original Message----- From: Neil Havermale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MI-L An earily Christmas, the .NETx partner model? I am going to start this out by saying that I have been in the "Partner" matrix with MapInfo from the days when yellow boxes were the big marketing innovation and MapInfo for Windows turned GIS industry on its ear. I am looking forward to MapInfo's next step technology and marketing lift with the same enthusiasm. (And I will bet that the .NET innovations to be revealed in the pending MapInfo Professional 8.0 will again set the pace for desktop mapping and GIS sciences. The stuff will first work and work reliably, and secondly, its implementation will set the quality bar for wise development.) But I have a couple of questions that are vexing me and possibly others in partnership. A number of us jumped on the vision of MapX when it was unpopular and likely an internal distraction. Well that risk is soon to become the core future technology as far as I can discern... yes, .NET is not COM but one lead to the next. Why did I endorse the MapX design? Simply it fit our business model far better technically as well as economically. It allowed us to step back from proprietary MapBasic and related limitations allowing us to move deeper into the component design as well as XML data structures. MapX also had a licensing design that allowed us to dream of MapInfo engined solutions that didn't require us to give up the lion's share of value to the mapping engine. Volume was the hope for the MapX team and us (if wishes were fishes). I am still optimistic. So now I face the uncertainty of the emerging desktopped .NET solution from MapInfo. MapBasic legacies will be provided for but MapX.COM will come to its maintenance end in the Spring and will go into full retirement some time later. And MapX code will not readily transform to .NET (change is good I have to remind myself). And as far as I can tell that business model for a developer, a low cost component engine, is also going away? I hope not. So what do we know? At this time if the question is asked you are directed towards the MapXtream.NET version and licensing solution. It doesn't fit nearly as well since it has a utility focus via the net. This may not be wrong but we and likely others still have roots in the desktop "mostly" stand alone design (I like the idea of racing out to the net for free data or enterprised map servers). Assuming 8.0+ development partners will face "runtime" licensing based on current MapBasic/Runtime design, that cost structure is also a significant jump... it alters the value added entry point to at least a 3X list over simply the runtime license. Not much room where competition comes in at the cost of the runtime. The legacy MapX licensing structure allowed such low-cost verticalized "fat-buttoned" solutions. Agreed you had to be willing to put your $ where your mouth was. So I was wondering if anyone might share concerns and or insights on this partnering and business model question? Good things come to those that wait could be one solution, but not when it is Godot. This is likely a sensitive issue and I will be happy to summarize thoughts without reference - I'll take the lumps if necessary. MidNight Mapper Aka neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 14329 --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 14336
