Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

IOS/SDK?

 [1/7] from: petr::krenzelok::trz::cz at: 17-Dec-2002 0:12


Hi, I would like to ask about possible (probably crazy :-) idea. Some developers are interested in seeing IOS developed. However we can't see any real advancements of IOS in last year or so. I can bet that each developer interested in IOS, would love to customise it to his/her needs. Wouldn't it be better for RT to e.g. sell IS framework as special part of SDK for some e.g. 500 USD? Maybe even lock it further to special licensing scheme? E.g. "if you use any part of IOS SDK, we take 10% of sale and 5% of client seat price" ... or something like that ... That way, we could see many interesting IOS related projects, and developer's community could also further enhance IOS framework itself and such changes would be put back into official SDK ... Any thoughts? -pekr-

 [2/7] from: bry:itnisk at: 17-Dec-2002 10:12


>Wouldn't it be better for RT to e.g. sell IS framework as special part >of SDK for some e.g. 500 USD? Maybe even lock it further to special >licensing scheme? E.g. "if you use any part of IOS SDK, we take 10% of >sale and 5% of client seat price" ... or something like that ...
although I am interested in IOS as something that seems to me to do what Groove does without the incredible draining of client resources, I don't know if I would be interested in another Byzantine licensing scheme. That's my initial opinion, my second one is that RT could step up as a serious contender against Groove, which might work to build the developer base.

 [3/7] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 17-Dec-2002 11:19


bryan wrote:
>>Wouldn't it be better for RT to e.g. sell IS framework as special part >>of SDK for some e.g. 500 USD? Maybe even lock it further to special
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
>serious contender against Groove, which might work to build the >developer base.
Yes, but that's the problem. RT seems to give up upon positioning IOS against Groove or Lotus Notes. We've seen no improvements of IOS during last year, no new reblets released, etc. If such trend will continue, IOS will die slow death. So I just thought it would be better if some company would take-over development of IOS, or even better, if RT would sell IOS concept in terms of SDK, so developers could build various custom solutions ... licensing scheme above was just an example, it could be completly different ... -pekr-

 [4/7] from: bry:itnisk at: 17-Dec-2002 12:17


>>That's my initial opinion, my second one is that RT could step up as a >>serious contender against Groove, which might work to build the
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
>We've seen no improvements of IOS during >last year, no new reblets released, etc.
Well I've worked with Groove and I did a quick evaluation of IOS, just to see how it worked, if they've given up positioning themselves against Groove then they have some sort of problem. IOS beats the versions of Groove I've worked with. I didn't go out and get IOS though, as I didn't see any way to build a business on top of it at the time (this has a lot to do with Danmark which is somewhat slow to pick stuff up), an sdk might be a good step. Since I never got too into the concept of IOS beyond the evaluation forgive my ignorance but couldn't people write their own reblets anyway?
> If such trend will continue, >IOS will die slow death.
This is gonna sound harsh but I'm of the opinion that unless RT gets some of that Bill Gates business-is-war attitude going then Rebol may die a slow death.
> So I just thought it would be better if some >company would take-over development of IOS, or even better, if RT would >sell IOS concept in terms of SDK, so developers could build various >custom solutions ... licensing scheme above was just an example, it >could be completly different ...
Sure. That was implicit in my second take on the subject, insofar as taking on Groove would involve courting developers, providing tools, sdks etc. , my first take was just the knee-jerk "whoa, more weird licensing?"

 [5/7] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 17-Dec-2002 11:56


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> developers are interested in seeing IOS developed. However we > can't see any real advancements of IOS in last year or so.
Hi, yep big problem. IOS is a good starte and base to continue with it. But there is not chance to do it ourself.
> I can bet that each developer interested in IOS, would love to
customise it to
> his/her needs.
Yes, and IOS could profit a lot from this. I hope to see an IOS/SDK one day and maybe up to that day the current IOS users could get some more support for their needs. Robert

 [6/7] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 17-Dec-2002 13:20


bryan wrote:
>>>That's my initial opinion, my second one is that RT could step up as a >>>serious contender against Groove, which might work to build the
<<quoted lines omitted: 16>>
>Since I never got too into the concept of IOS beyond the evaluation >forgive my ignorance but couldn't people write their own reblets anyway?
Yes, we can write our own reblets. But IOS desktop, that's it. What if you want to provide different kind of view to your users? What if you wish to update syncing mechanism a bit? What if you want to localise it into your native language? RT would have to provide you with desktop sources. But that would disclose their IP. As you can see, that part of equation is still not solved. There is more things which would deserve to be adressed - being it technology itself, marketing of product, setting network of VARs etc etc. Quite complicated and sensitive issues ... -pekr-

 [7/7] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 17-Dec-2002 14:17


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> RT gets some of that Bill Gates business-is-war attitude > going then Rebol may die a slow death.
I only can second this. I understand that it's a ressource problem with RT and I'm sure RT knows this too. But in this case, doing nothing to/with IOS is a very bad solution of the problem. I see these situations: 1. RT won't focus on IOS anymore: A) In this case, find a partner who is going to work in it as a product line, who will position it against Groove and Lotus Notes. RT gets some roalties. B) Provide a SDK to IOS and let everyone do what they like with it. A bit dangerous because this will fragment IOS development. Fragmentation of effort is the death of a small company/product/technology community. (BTW: IMO the Rebol community is already fragemented to much. Mailinglist, different IOS servers, AltME etc. I'm using the ML, don't follow any IOS conversations and use AltME because it's faster than the IOS messenger). 2. RT will focus on IOS: Than there should be a clear strategy that gets communicated. At the moment we IOS users are sitting around and waiting if something happens. Time plays against us and RT. If I were RT I would go for 1/A, best strategical move they can do at the moment. To me it looks like RT is focusing on the development side (and this is correct because RT are the only ones that can enhance the tools). Robert

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted