Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (28886)	11/11/1999 4:16:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

Hey Scott - Will MSFT move to playing on a level playing field as well? I mean their marketshare in the desktop arena is a VERY powerful ADVANTAGE. When you consider that MSFT's revenue stream from the OS market can fuel and fund just about any product development under the sun AND they control the very environment which a competitor is attempting to compete.....this is a "level playing field"? I can see how you defend MSFT on principle. I won't argue that point. In a vacuum, every company has the right to defend itself and its products. My question then is - does MSFT's marketshare become a factor in the definition of a "level playing field"? If not, why? (please don't say it's not an absolute and that things change so rapidly et al....this hasn't been proven true or untrue so I take it as a non-factor at this time). How can you say that Netscape enjoyed the same "level playing field" as MSFT in developing a Windows application that would compete directly with that MSFT product(s)? Don't even consider the money factor - consider the control they had over the environment! Isn't this the crux of the argument? That MSFT's position in the marketplace alters the "level playing field"? We can't honestly expect this to be true when you have made your point so effortlessly - every company has the right to defend their product. What stops MSFT from changing underlying code to alter (and harm) a competitors product? Nothing. Except when you "own" the very market your competitors are vying for. I think you've attached alot of energy and emotion combating us in a verbal tug of war that centered on a very real principle that has no bearing on the reality of what competing against a MSFT product actually means. Peter J Strifas

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (28886)	11/11/1999 5:43:00 PM
From: jwright	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

Scott my intention is not to start a verbal dispute. I just gave some examples. I do have the belief though that anyone creating an API should spend the time up front to architect their service and document the API. Sure it takes more work doing it this way when everyone wants feature xyz yesterday. But in my experience the work done upfront will yield higher benefits later down the road. An API not thoroughly thought out is probably an API that will be forever revised or horrors lead to more API's to make up for the formers inadequacies. I believe that an API should be architected and documented without writing a single line of code. Then and only then should it be coded. After coded the developer should test and use the API. Its amazing when you actually use the API that some of its shortcomings come to light. The last thing you want to do is design an API that is confusing and difficult to use. Only after you have gone through these steps should the API be published for others to use whether that be internally or externally. To me this thought process is the difference between an engineer and a programmer. So in my mind if everybody followed these guidelines an API will always be documented but maybe just not exposed for others to use. Sadly I don't think this is the case in our industry in that too many API's are designed on the fly without much thought put into them. Anyway one man's opinion. Jimmy

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (28886)	11/11/1999 6:42:00 PM
From: ToySoldier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

Hi Scott, I have enjoyed the reading on this topic of API publishing. One point that you made that I have to respond to... Good point! So you are able to give me specific examples of places where Microsoft did not, or does not, have complete documentation. So now that takes us to the second question ... does Novell? Does Sun? Does Netscape? And please don't take this the wrong way ... again ... I would suggest that each vendor has incomplete information ... it's a major resource issue, and there is a certain amount of "protection" that is offered by this ... by all vendors. The answer to your question is moot! The reason is because there is a MAJOR difference between MSFT keeping its API's secret and for its own use and that of all the other vendors that you mentioned - MSFT has a "stated" monopoly on the OS that all the other vendors, upstarts, new competitors, etc. in the industry NEED in order to have any chance in competing fairly with MSFT. So what if NOVL possibly does not publish/document its code to its API's - it also does not have a monopoly in the OS that meshes to these APIs. You missed the whole point on this one Scott - its not the fact that vendor APIs are kept private - its that the APIs of a vendor that has a clear monopoly to the related OS is not published. Hence the unfair advantage the MSFT has. Lets get back to the initial point that brought out all these discussion. Scott - I once a again bow to your great ability to debate. As you were proven incorrect in the points you made, you slyly change the basis of your point. But I saw your move and Jim has got you dead to rights on that point. Great discussion though! Toy