Hear, hear, Chris

Joshua

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:35:16AM -0800, Chris Muller wrote:
> 
> > My own experience with squeak is that it only needs a decient
> > web-browser and a usable word-processor as well as a few layout fixups
> > to be ready for prime-time... 
> 
> I think the path to commercial success with Squeak on the large-scale you are
> thinking is to use Squeak to lead, not follow.  Attempting to imitate
> "web-browsing" and "word-processing" with Squeak would be a public-relations
> "death" for Squeak.  How would you possibly sell it?  Lower-cost alone just
> wouldn't cut it, IMHO.
> 
> I'm content to let MS wallow in the costly mess that is those legacy
> "applications" (wp'ing and wb'ing).  Meanwhile, I'm trying to use Squeak to
> build something entirely new and different in terms of what is in the
> commercial mainstream.  Morphic is key, but an interface to launch people into
> the legacy apps as well access to the XML representations of their document
> "objects" would certainly help with their transition.
> 
> I truly believe there is a huge market of less-technical people who *want* to
> wield the computer without having to rely so much on tech-savvy people..  It's
> just that, they don't have an accessible tool other than "Excel" that they
> understand that also doesn't close them in.
> 
> I like to think of Squeak as "tool-builder" and any end-user "products" I
> create with it will have entirely different names; e.g., I won't be calling
> them "Squeak".  A "Powered by Squeak" annotation could be helpful, though.
> 
> I could want nothing more than for you and others to have commercial success
> using Squeak.  Please keep us posted.
> 
> Regards,
>   Chris