day 28

artisans of the electrosphere 5: the rising software industry

"The School of de Chirico" George Deem, 1993 What will become of programming? Ford Motor Company is part of an industry, rather than simply a big company. The only equivalent in the software business is Microsoft, because Microsoft is part of an industry too, rather than simply a big company. This important idea has been overlooked by many pundits. Until Microsoft came along, there was no such thing as a software industry. Instead, there was mainly a bunch of companies competing with one another, offering proprietary, incompatible, and competitive products. It was as if Ford Motor Company built cars with levers while GM built them with steering wheels, and Chrysler used push buttons. A Ford part still does not always fit onto a Chrysler or Chevy, but all autos run on the same roads, use standard wheels, standard fuels, and depend upon the same suppliers that form a very large infrastructure called "the automobile industry". This reminds me of my next rule: A COMPANY HAS PRODUCT CAPACITY; AN INDUSTRY HAS PRODUCTION CAPACITY. Microsoft makes products such as Windows95 and Office; more importantly, Microsoft paves the software economy with production capacity. This production capacity is a consequence of the establishment of supply and demand inside of the computer industry. There are over 60,000 third-party developers that run on the highway paved by Microsoft. If any other single feature of Microsoft can explain its success, it is this: Microsoft makes room for its (potential) competitors. How does Microsoft do this? First, most of the products created by Microsoft are incomplete. They need additions. All of Microsoft's operating systems need applications. Microosft and others create applications for these operating systems. Furthermore, Microsoft's applications (such as Office) are themselves incomplete. Many third party developers are needed to "fill in the gaps" of these products. Finally, Microsoft has learned how to become an infrastructure company. Its OLE and ActiveX infrastructure creates production opportunities for thousands of the Microsoft groupie companies that follow Microsoft technology roadmaps as if they were the route to the promised land. Contrast this with Apple Computer: "The Macintosh is a total solution to all of your computing needs." For the most part, there is little that can be added to a Mac without coming into direct competition with Apple. This leaves little room for an industry to spring up around the Mac. Apple Computer is a company, not an industry. This is Apple's weakness. While it is not entirely true that the Mac is a complete solution, it is true enough that the Mac has failed to find a mainstream audience. The third-party developers needed to sustain a "Macintosh industry" simply did not materialize. A final rule sets the stage for building a software industry. IN EVERY INDUSTRY THERE ARE CONSUMERS AND PRODUCERS. IF THE RISING SOFTWARE BUSINESS IS TO BECOME A TRUE INDUSTRY, IT MUST EVOLVE TOWARDS A COMMUNITY OF PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS. What does this have to do with the artisans of the electrosphere? The artisans of the electrosphere will be the software producers that emerge as software businesses evolve into an industry. In the future, only a talented few will be creative enough to produce software. Maybe 500,000 artisans is all we need. Millions of consumers will consume the creative products of these artisans. How? Componentware. Microsoft's ActiveX, OMG's CORBA, and CILabs' OpenDoc are the most-likely candidates to lead the transformation. The painting by Deem symbolizes the importance of the individual in art. Similarly, a very small group of artisans will produce software components for reuse by the consuming masses. Like the great artists of the past, the software artisans of the future will be few and far between. But the number of consumers will swell into millions. This is the way it has always been; why should the software age be any different?

artisans of the electrosphere: 1 2 3 4 5 Daily Dose Index