I hate to continue in this thread, but, as the philosophical ramifications
concern the Newton as well (read on) I take my breath, and write onward. :-)
First of all, I'm well acquainted with Open Doc, have have used it
practically since its inception. I was enamored with what it promised, and
with several of its offerings. After Apple canceled it, I continued to use
it, and have corresponded much on the topic of what went wrong, and have
even written privately with some of its biggest developers and proponents.
I've also spent a lot of time philosophizing about OD's failure, and am
reasonably sure that my conclusions are correct. I'm going to attempt, as
shortly as possible, to explain a bit of its failure, and maybe expose some
of why the Newton never took off. First of all, we have to look at these
things and realize that they failed, not because of poor marketing or
because of hostile forces, but because Apple made major blunders, either in
the execution (Newton) or in the concept (Open Doc). Rather than trying to
point fingers and blame, let's keep the blame where it belongs. In the case
of OD, it was a concept that could not work, so, without further ado...
on 10/26/01 1:55 AM, Joel M. Sciamma at joelsciamma_at_compuserve.com wrote:
> I was aware of distinct antagonism from some of the major developers like MS
> and Adobe towards OpenDoc
The perhaps more proper word, as I read it at the time, was indifference.
>> The problem is that we, as people, like our computers compartmentalized into
>> proprietary formats. If we didn't, in the end, things would change.
>
> I fundamentally disagree here because no real choice is available. We allow
> ourselves to be manipulated and disadvantaged by the current system.
> Interestingly, the greater integration of the MS Office suite shows, if not
> very convincingly yet, that people work well and accept the concept of
> moving the application into the background in favour of the data. Jon, there
> is no mileage is promoting the status quo as the best possible solution. If
> it were then computing would cease to evolve from it's primitive origins.
> Perhaps this _is_ what's happening.
Before we go further, I want to address your assertion that we are allowing
ourselves to be manipulated. If you want to see yourself as manipulated, or
even see normal people being manipulated, go ahead, believe it. I have a bit
of a higher opinion of people than that. This is something that some people
have a hard time accepting, but the truth is, people are comfortable with
the current situation, including the hassles that it brings. Notice that I
didn't say "happy" but comfortable. This is partly because it is a known
quantity. But more so, it is because computers, in their strange way, mimic
the real world. Let's look at what I mean by discussing Open Doc.
The problem with OD is that it doesn't work. I have tried Open Doc, and
while I liked it, the more I used it, the greater its weaknesses appeared to
me. The truth is that, while people may work on "documents", those documents
are composed of specific elements. When I work with graphics, I want all the
power available to work on those documents. When I want to work on audio, I
want all resources available to work on audio. In fact, I find myself using
multiple tools in each case, because each has its own strengths and
weaknesses. When I work on text, I also want to work with those tools that
best fit the job. By forcing everybody into a non-application environment, I
think that you are limiting the user _more_ than if you let him work with
discreet applications, and worse, forcing him to do the _exact opposite_ of
your intended goal, which is to focus on the data at hand, and not on the
tool he is using.
To help illustrate, let's move the analogy out of the computer realm. I have
a little tool, called a Leatherman. It is a knife, pliers, screwdrivers,
saw, and I forget what else. It is a great, all-in-one tool that I can carry
in my pocket. Unfortunately, the included tools are less "powerful" (and
therefore, less useful) than discreet, stand-alone tools, and don't have
some of the features that the real tools have (a comfortable handle on a
screwdriver, for instance). When I need to do serious work, I go and get
those large, super-powered tools that do one thing, and do it well. For
instance, when I need to do serious work with a screwdriver, I don't take
out my Leatherman, I get a real screwdriver. When I need a saw, I get the
right saw for the job. That Leatherman is in my car for--guess what--
emergencies. :-)
Now, suppose that I tried to create a super all-in-one tool. It has
everything in one. This is what component architecture ends up being. The
super tool in this instance is the document (not the editors). This is the
holy cow of component architecture. You work on documents, and not in
applications, and as you need parts, you add them to the document. It is, as
they say, "document centric." The one document keeps adding parts upon parts
upon parts. Each piece is added to the tool, called the document. When I say
each piece, I mean each piece. Every single graphic has all the overhead of
its own tool being added to the base tool. Every text frame is also added as
a separate piece to this big, monstrous tool. I could not imagine a tool
that contained several electric drills, a couple of saws, maybe with
different blades, and a level, a knife, and so on. Such a tool would be
ludicrous. However, this is what happens in Open Doc. In the end, you have a
document that is much larger in size than it needs to be, simply because it
has to have all this stuff added to it. (No, the editors aren't included,
but there is enough overhead added by each editor, and each iteration of the
editor to create a monster.) Rather than having a mean, lean document file,
and working environment, you have a fat, bloated tool, and the end result is
that you use this only in light or emergency situations, like the Leatherman
(quick, one page letters that don't use a lot of graphics and require
multiple text frames). There really is no way to get beyond this limitation
that I can see. From all that I've read, this little problem has yet to be
solved, except for...
The Newton. The Newton went a different direction. Instead of discreet files
and programs, and instead of document-specific, it became task-specific. The
real power of the Newton was in its soup architecture. That said, however,
it worked because it limited itself to its area of strenght. Because the
Newton was based on an organizer metaphor, it is essentially an enormous
database structure. On the Newton, this works great, and, in my opinion, is
the best way to go. I've asked myself many times, however, if I would want
this on my desktop. Of a truth, not really. Look at Hypercard. It is based
to a degree on the same concepts, and yet, where is it today? (Please don't
go blaming Apple. It died because it wasn't really understood and used by
the vast majority of users) The truth is, most people feel more comfortable
with discreet programs and discreet files. This is how we think and how we
work in the real world. Why should we change it on the computer? (Don't
agree? then where do the names "files" and "folders" on the computer come
from ? --Real life) The real truth is that computers already mimic real
life, and they do it naturally (and maybe because Apple made it popular).
Yes, there are what people perceive to be problems--proprietary formats,
different platforms, etc, but those also exist in the real world.
Unfortunately, the component software model is too much _unlike_ reality for
it to be widely accepted. As a final proof, why have attempts to describe
and explain component software always fallen short of their goal? The answer
is simple. The concept was too different to be easily grasped, and if too
difficult to grasp, it was too difficult to use (and this is beyond the
technical issues of OpenDoc). I suggest therefore that component software is
not the answer.
P.S. I always sense an undercurrent in the discussion on component software
that the real problem that people have, has more to do with economics than
with computers. Huh? Look at your own words, "I was aware of distinct
antagonism from some of the major developers like MS and Adobe towards
OpenDoc because it directly threatened their way of doing things. They had
no model for making money in a component world so this was not something to
encourage. This was not the reason for the demise of OpenDoc but it was a
factor that was not lost on Apple." The following expressions were also
frequently heard in the discussion of Open Doc and component software in
general: "leveling the playing field"; "giving small developers equal
access"; "empowering small developers to compete with the large
corporations," and other such statements. Of a truth, none of these have
anything directly to do with improving the end user's experience, but with
an attempt to neutralize the larger corporations, such as the given examples
of Microsoft and Adobe. I won't get into the implications of these
arguments, but want to point out that the end user experience was always
given secondary consideration, once the discussion began.
-- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland <mailto:jonglass_at_usa.net> <mailto:glasshaus5_at_aol.com> "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." --John Adams-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 10:02:47 EST