What proprietary software can teach open source developers about winning over new users [via Slashdot:4/12/2005; 2:52:24 PM] "As proponents of open source software, it should not be beneath us to pursue popularity or to look to proprietary developers as examples. And by following the right examples, we can help spread the usage of open source software without sacrificing the goal of software excellence.

"Being the best doesn't always mean being the most popular. Though open source applications often excel in stability and in quantity of features, they are often surpassed by their proprietary counterparts in their ability to win over regular users.

"There are three traits that are likely to make an application popular: it is cool or attractive in some way, it provides easy entry, and it is addictive. Barring these things, most average users will stick with the status quo. Open source developers have made great strides in recent years in developing office software that eases migration from Microsoft, and there are some powerful applications for Linux in just about every field. Linux software can surely provide that 'wow' impression to a user, but there is not often enough an easy point of entry that brings that 'wow' to a new user quickly.

"By no means am I proposing a dumbing-down of Linux software to serve the masses, nor am I suggesting that no open source or Linux developers are serving the interests of new users. To really take off, however, a product must be addictive. There's a big difference between, "I used that once, and it was pretty cool," and "I don't know how I ever lived without this!" It's the latter which will carry users through the learning process of a potentially complex application and get them convincing their friends to try it."

4/12/2005 10:27:06 PM    

---

IBM's Future is in Services, Not Goods - So What To Research? [Slashdot: 4/12/2005; 4:53:26 PM] According to IBM exec Paul Horn, the company's business model is shifting from goods and products to software and services. IBM’s tentative approach to supporting services ended in July 2002, when it announced that it was planning to buy PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting. By the end of 2003, the two companies’ first full year of merged operation, close to half of IBM’s revenues were coming from services. In contrast, services accounted for less than 15 percent of R&D spending. “So did that mean Lou [Gerstner, then the CEO] could say, ‘Do I need only half the R&D spending?’” Horn recalls wondering. “Those things get you thinking.” Horn's challenge, then, has been to take a $6 billion research organization dedicated to work that advances technology products and get it to do work that benefits service businesses. IBM is thus in the process of answering an important question for all technology companies: can corporations perform useful research in the services arena? 4/12/2005 10:00:01 PM    

---

Hardware accelerator for physics calculations. [Seattle Times 4/11/2005 via Boing Boing 4/12/2005] A San Jose startup is building a "physics accelerator" for PCs that will contain hardware optimized for calculating realistic simulations of real-world physics.

Dubbed PhysX, the chip will enable things like gelatinous creatures whose bodies shift shape like a liquid, crumpling fenders in car crashes, massive explosions with 10,000 pieces of debris, clothing that hangs realistically, and lava or blood that flows like the real thing.

The PC gaming community is about to be overshadowed by new consoles with plenty of extra processing power to handle better physics. A PC with a physics chip could match the consoles. But do gamers really want to buy an add-on card just to improve the realism in their games? Ageia argues that they will when they realize physics is key to situations where they try to do something in a game and the environment doesn't respond. If you crash a plane into some trees and none fall, it destroys the fantasy.

Comment: See 16 Commandments of Investing.

4/12/2005 9:31:03 AM    

---

The Performance Paradox. [Fast Company 4/12/2005; 6:53:39 AM] If you deliver, you only qualify to deliver more. Establish a reputation for great value, top quality, or pulling late-night miracles in time for crucial client meetings, and soon enough, the goalposts move. "Greatness" lasts only as long as someone fails to imagine something better. Inevitably, the exceptional becomes the expected. So how can we possibly get off the treadmill? 4/12/2005 9:19:32 AM    

---

16 Commandments of Investing. [X PRIZE Space Race News! 4/11/2005; 4:53:54 PM] If you see any of the following, run away 1. The principals cannot understand why the coolness factor is not enough to get capital. 2. The principals adhere to the 'build it and they will come philosophy' instead of specifically defining their market by depth and size in their business plan. ... 4/12/2005 9:10:54 AM    

---

ROI, TCO, COO, Yakety yak, don't talk back.. [Doc Searls' IT Garage 4/12/2005; 12:52:14 AM] So here we are, making another migration for a client when the new CFO starts it up about how are we going to justify costs, overuns, Return on Investment. What is really comical though, is that almost every small company we have contracted to, just as they start getting big, always bring in the new Financial Heads, and they appoint them in charge of IT. Don't ask me why, I have no idea who's great idea that was to make finance in charge of IT. In fact, the big industry financial heads I know stay as far away from impeding IT at all costs. But not the small growing transition companies. The best small biz managers I know will typically still steer IT from the top, not at the financial interference level. IT is fully accountable for the metrics of performance as it relates to IT, but the last thing any IT person wants is micro economic management. 4/12/2005 9:03:20 AM    

---