<seriously>
It seems to me that the greatest challenge to the SW industry today is to 
find a business model that makes money on superior products.
--Trygve

At 26.04.2004 08:10, you wrote:
>Tim Rowledge wrote:
>
> > Plenty of people have noticed the link btween architecture and
> > software, and more recently of the value of patterns as seen in the
> > Alexander book. Whilst seeking out info on housebuilding I came across
> > http://www.bensonwood.com/openbuilt/whitepaper2003.pdf  and found it
> > startlingly like a paper on good late bound software architecture. I
> > really think it's worth a read. Maybe we should start agitating for
> > late binding in our buildings as well as our software?
>
><tongue-in-cheek>
>Quite striking parallels. However, maybe they should learn from software
>technology, instead, which suggests urgently to leave everything as is. The
>MS Windows experience has shown that it is much more profitable for everyone
>involved (on the provider's side) to have an inferior base product and thus
>make it possible to sell tons and tons of support services, much much more
>overall than you could make from a technologically superb solution. What
>would we have to sell to the customer, if our products were simple, reliable
>and easily changed and maintained? Should we slay the goose that lays the
>golden eggs?
></tongue-in-cheek>
>
>Cheers, Lothar


-- 

Trygve Reenskaug      mailto: trygver at ifi.uio.no
Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver
N-0378 Oslo           Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
Norway