The problem isn't WebObjects-- it is a problem systemic to the entire
e-commerce/online-software industry.
Most of the projects that are executed within the net-space enounter
serious problems while on the path of implementation.
Due to poor management, a floating specification (if any spec at all),
crappy implementation, a completely unrealistic business model, or any
number of other problems that can arise when trying to make a zillion
moving parts work together, most of the projects are delivered under
extremely stressful circumstances.
The end result is that there is client unhappiness, devleoper unhappiness
and the fingure pointing follows not long after the project is delivered
and the first bugs are found (or the project is delivered and doesn't
scale well into the "real" market). In a lot of cases, the project isn't
delivered and some random makeshift part of it is thrown up at the
"project deliverable".
If it is an in house project, it is always easier to point fingers at the
technical than at the development team, project managers, or the internal
process (or lack thereof).
If it was done out of house through a consulting team, the client points
their finger at the external team and the external team scrambles to try
and limit liability. It is far weasier to blame the tools than the
process.
Either way, the tools lose.
Instead of learning from the experience and applying the knowledge gained
to make the next project a success, the ividiuals involved typically take
the path of least resistance-- change the tool, not the process by which
the solution is built.
For all the former-WO-but-2.0-is-something-else sites that are out there,
there are a similar number of used-to-be-something-else-but-now-it-is-WO
projects.
Either way, some are successful, some aren't.... the tool will be blamed
upon failure (because blaming people means you might have to eventually
take some of the blame yourself... blaming a tool means you buy something
else-- the tool doesn't have feelings and can't sue you for emotional
trauma).
Upone success, the people get the credit because it makes everyone look
better...
b.bum
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
> > >> I guess Evergreen finally got them to pull the plug on
> > >> WebObjects... It only took 4 years!
> > >
> > >Disturbing nonetheless -- especially for a high-profile site
> > >Apple has been mentioning in WO seminars.
> >
> > Ya, but this stuff comes and goes.
> > For the old sites doing WO and leaving, new sites will become WO to replace
> > them.
> > Let's not forget, very little stays static on the internet for long.
>
> That's not the real issue. The issue is, that it now appears to
> people that Evergreen is VASTLY superior. After all, why would anyone
> bother totally reengineering a successful project, with additional
> work and new potential problems if not because either
> a) the existing solution is very problematic or
> b) the new solution is vastly superior
> Surely, nothing is static in the web space, but mostly because new and
> better stuff comes along all the time. If WO gets replaced, then that
> indicates to people (true or not doesn't matter and is not the issue here)
> that WO has fallen behind the curve or that there is a dirty secret
> with WO that people discover after using it for a while, and when they do,
> they try as hard as possible to get off the platform.
> In either case, such things are really bad news, particularly since
> SharperImage is not the only such case. You can add E*trade and Dell
> and probably a few others to that list.
> I'm not concerned about WO, but about the message this sends to potential
> clients. If they know about it, they will ask questions like: "Why did they
> switch? Why shouldn't we just use Evergreen to begin with and learn from
> other people's mistakes? etc."
>
> Ronald
> ==============================================================================
> "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." G.B. Shaw | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | NeXT-mail welcome
>
>
