RE: OT : Red Carpet and Common Update mechanism (was RE: Nautilus ?)
>From: Joris Lambrecht [mailto:jlambrec@landis.be]
--<snip>--
>services (don't get me wrong here :-)/applications but don't see why a
>common update/installation interface would be a drawback for commercial
>company's. In fact it would be advantageous to them, offering
>free publicity
>(in a list of sites to add to your update/services list) to
>their services.
Hadn't really thought about that - which would be a plus, but that is
because I think know why they won't.
>One would simply choose the service that best fits her/her
>needs and budget.
Consider that they will all be providing almost the exact same thing. How
many different ways can you deliver software and check for new versions?
When you refer to free FTP servers, you discuss the merits. When you refer
to pay FTP servers, you discuss which is the least expensive and still does
what you want.
>Even offering on-demand documentation would be one of the
>implementations i
>see for such a service. Maybe the Linux Documentation Project
>can be put to
>world-wide use here as an on-demand knowledge/solutions
>database ? There
Ahhh, but the information is supposed to be free, right? Science vs.
corporation, right? If you limited the information access the barrier to
entry would immediately become almost too great.
>Ximian triggered the idea really but i'm not fond
>of an update
>service that doesn't work on my system. Don't understand why they don't
>develop to it's full potential.
They will, but it will be Ximian. That is their future revenue stream the
same as Redhat and Eazel. The only way to have someone use your product
instead of the competitors is to differentiate (or severely under-cut in
price), which is why they won't create a standard. Which is why APT might
ascend to the throne.
I feel for them, but you are going to have several companies fighting for
the same small slice. Possibly a model where an over-arching service existed
that collected for it's update service, but passed on money to those that
developed the products it dispenses to reward them for those that use their
goods. But then we are back to paying for software, aren't we? The big
difference is that those who had their software actually used more would
automatically get the bigger share of the funds and if I had five word
processors, then it would be split.
Reply to: