SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: alankeister who wrote (27909)7/14/2000 11:16:21 AM
From: Mike Buckley  Read Replies (2) of 54805
 
Alan,

I'm either completely out to lunch on this stuff about proprietary architecture or I'm absolutely right. I doubt that there's any room for much middle ground. Just when I thought I was done ranting about this :) you posed a great question.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the use of proprietary architecture. The example you used [of spreadsheet software] is proprietary software but not necessarily proprietary architecture. No?

Based on my understanding, the way the software is put together is the architecture. From page 52 of TRFM, "Architectures define the way in which various parts of a system hook into one another in order to make the whole thing work." Clearly, that statement alone implies why enabling architectures offer the opportunity for greater power and control than applications architectures. But I infer from that statement that the architecture Siebel upon which Siebel builds its various modules, upon which Microsoft builds Excel, etc., is the proprietary architecture being referenced on the smallest scale. Because fewer things have to be hooked up to (connected to) those apps to make them viable for the end user, there is less control involved than the case of a router as just one example.

Again, I need to remind everyone that my outlook about CDMA is that the only real difference between Qualcomm's CDMA and everyone else's CDMA is that Qualcomm's works better. It's really no different in that one sense than one app that works better than another app. The reason I believe Qualcomm's CDMA will be accepted as a certain kind of standard is that 1) it offers benefits other standards (GSM and TDMA) don't offer and because Qualcomm's CDMA is better than any other company's CDMA. (Don't think Qualcomm has the only CDMA because that's simply not true.)

--Mike Buckley
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News