|
Newsletters
|
|
|
|
|
| Wireless Developer Network Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | Re: MobileLBSList: WAP/WML interoperable? |
| Date: |
09/08/2000 10:36:12 AM |
| From: |
Gould Carlson Michael |
|
Mensaje citado por: Alistair Edwardes <aje@geo.ed.ac.uk>:
> Mike
> Just my two pence worth -
Ok, my 2 pesetas back at you...
>
> I'd be cautious about aggregating patterns of maturity for different
> technologies into a single model.
Whoops, sorry about my loose use of "model": no scientific integrity
implied by either our graphic or Gartner Group's original idea. Just a
quick, graphic way of comparing various entities (technologies in this
case).
>It seems that taking a view at such a
> high
> level limits what you can say about the influences on uptake for
individual
> technologies and hence the likelihood of a technology actually
reaching
> maturation. The use of terminology such as 'hype' also implies that
the
> sole
> factor involved in the success of a technology is it's coverage in the
> media, which sort of makes secondary the degree to which a technology
> satisfies particular market and industry resource needs at a given
point in
> time.
Hype is Gartner Groupīs term. I think itīs an appropriate term for a
key factor what drives IT. You have seen, I suspect, the Dilbert
comics? Lots of IT managers (no offense to anyone out there!) are like
Dilbertīs boss, driven by rumour (hype) and influenced by buzzwords.
> Wouldn't the shear investment in a technology be a better indicator?
Not necessarily better, but also very interesting to look at. Free
browsers may have a bigger impact on certain parts of IT than high-
investment items such as mainframe software.
> Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what hype means - how is hype
measured? It
> also seems you're in danger of comparing apples and pears.
Indeed we are. But then again, no need to directly compare the items on
the curve: Corba is very differnt from SVG, but we can still gleem
something from looking at their respective spots.
> Can you really
> compare horizontal and vertical technologies in the same analysis ?
For
> instance, isn't the uptake of GML and WML inter-related to the uptake
of
> XML?
Yes and no. Base XML might stabilise (probably will) while XML dialects
(say, football markup language) can be quite ephemeral.
> I'd suggest that there also seems to be a final stage missing from the
> model
> which is the point when a technology becomes 'legacy'.
Good point, probably best directed to www.gartner.com !
> Since the rate of
> the
> life cycle for different technologies will differ wildly according to
> changes in market needs. It seems that the argument you posit in your
> conclusion that
> "When considering a technology for GI interoperability, one should be
sure
> to carefully evaluate its maturity." would be equally true if basing
on a
> technology on a components that are too close to stagnation. So for
> instance even if WAP does ride the wave to the 'plateau of
productivity' it
> may still rapidly become a legacy standard with new innovations and
market
> needs.
Are equating legacy with stagnation?
In any case, I think most people interested in these IT guessing games
are more concerned about "getting out of the trough" than in what
happens awhen something stabilises.
Which GI interop-related technologies do you think will get to the
plateau??
>
> Cheers Alistair
>
> Alistair J Edwardes
> Department of Geography
> University of Edinburgh
> Drummond Street
> EDINBURGH EH8 9XP
> Scotland, U.K.
>
Cheers,
Mike Gould
preANVIL: www.anvil.eu.com
To unsubscribe, write to mobilelbslist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com
________________________________________________________________________
The MobileLBSList is brought to you by The GeoCommunity and The WirelessDeveloperNetwork
http://www.geocomm.com
http://www.wirelessdevnet.com
|
|
|
