My pondering was merely a function of - is it enough to build a business?
For instance, if Google wanted to become your one-stop-shop for online desktop-grade web applications (aren't they kind of already? GWT?), developing a tool like this in house would be a fantastic idea as it would increase the productivity of the developers.
But that's Google. The exception not the rule.
How many desktop-rich web applications have "made it." Facebook, Google Applications, the newly exiting Mint come to mind. How many of you hackers here have created incredible technology with 3 hits a month and no paying customers?
I guess the point I'm trying to press here is how many tech companies can exist to feed the need of other tech companies (which presumably make money from other sources)?
Start ups like 37 Signals were smart as hell because they saw the demand for simple services (communication, version control, project management) from a large pool of willing customers ready to cut their costs (other tech start ups).
But where do THOSE start ups get their money? VCs? Acquisitions? (That money only counts if the founders reinvest it in the industry) This begs the question - are the large successes like Facebook/Google/Twitter/Mint/etc feeding a working-class of willing tech "entrepreneurs" for money that simply doesn't exist?
I encourage debate as this seems like a gaping hole in some Valley-Hacker mentalities.
Well, considering they could probably charge $100-200 for such an IDE, and that there are now a very large (100K and growing) set of Cocoa developers (thanks to the iPhone, mostly) who can be immediately productive in such an environment, delivering apps on Web, Mac, and Windows, ...
'How many desktop-rich web applications have "made it."'
maybe that depends on your definition of 'made it'. Personally I think any self-sustaining business is a sign of success - and using this definition there are many thousands of successful software developers out there making a comfortable living building rich web apps that you'll never hear of simply because they don't fit into the social media zeitgeist
My pondering was merely a function of - is it enough to build a business?
For instance, if Google wanted to become your one-stop-shop for online desktop-grade web applications (aren't they kind of already? GWT?), developing a tool like this in house would be a fantastic idea as it would increase the productivity of the developers.
But that's Google. The exception not the rule.
How many desktop-rich web applications have "made it." Facebook, Google Applications, the newly exiting Mint come to mind. How many of you hackers here have created incredible technology with 3 hits a month and no paying customers?
I guess the point I'm trying to press here is how many tech companies can exist to feed the need of other tech companies (which presumably make money from other sources)?
Start ups like 37 Signals were smart as hell because they saw the demand for simple services (communication, version control, project management) from a large pool of willing customers ready to cut their costs (other tech start ups).
But where do THOSE start ups get their money? VCs? Acquisitions? (That money only counts if the founders reinvest it in the industry) This begs the question - are the large successes like Facebook/Google/Twitter/Mint/etc feeding a working-class of willing tech "entrepreneurs" for money that simply doesn't exist?
I encourage debate as this seems like a gaping hole in some Valley-Hacker mentalities.