X-Platform argument is it reality or potential.
I must admit, one comment from scoble last week did sit with me. He stated the following
"...If you care about cross-platform (and if you are a Web developer, you do)..."
This statement, although is out of context hit a nerve with me, as typically web developers are very x-platform centric as they have to be, given that the web browser these days can sit on any platform out there, or does it?
I've noticed Adobe have been sprouting this when they mention the words Apollo, that somehow there is more of a demand out there for Apple OSX and Linux driven applications for the average user to use. It means there is wider reach potential and that in turns will provide depth, yet I'm wondering where these numbers are coming from.
I did a search and I'm unable to find anywhere from Adobe or anyone else who yelps the X-Platform dicussion, I do read a lot about how its a must-have but am yet to really unpick this and get to the bottom of where this shift is coming from.
Is it a research that Adobe has found from folks downloading Adobe Flash Player? If that's the case, then I wonder if that represents the demographic of the actual users whom will benefit from the Apollo driven applications (i.e. the actual developers customer's customer). If majority of Flash developers out there are using Apple OSX machines to punch out the code, then could it be fair to say that the X-Platform argument will identify with them more so then the people with whom the applications are initially intended to be used by.
I decided to pull up the 2006 statistics for MossyBlog.com, a site that had a very strong Adobe flavoured approach to things, that got amazing number of stats from the "Adobe / Macromedia" scene and see what the results would yeild.
The result was, that 6% of my user base where Mac OSX and furthermore another 5% where Linux. There is the unknown percentage (23%) which one could argue as not being an agent and thus unable for the stats package to determine platform type. Yet, 66% of the people that visited the site were Windows.
This is not isolated, I've seen countless sites one after the other whom have similiar results.
This then begs the question, is 6% of my consumer worth loosing? That's something each individual company and developer must ask internally but more importantly its what the developer must ask the client/employer to make a decision on. As when you sprout that X-Platform is the future and the numbers aren't stacking, what you're effectively doing is creating a potential vs reality discussion.
I'm not convinced X-Platform is an absolute must, especially if it comes to picking architecture as technically speaking, you're not really picking the right solution for the right job - just one that's more universally elegant.
Lastly, if eBay had 6% of its demographic using Mac OSX and that was 6% of a billion users, fair call - invest and watch your returns increase by 6% (well argueably, it would be probably around 20% of the 6% or something smaller then that).
If you've got a demographic of internal users within a corporation or you've got a small customer base online that have as low statistics as the above then basically weigh up the return vs visit factors. As its one thing to say "I've just catered for 6% of the minority here, look at me!" - yet - I would then ask, out of that 6% how many are now customers/clients? if the number comes up below 20% of the 6% ... do the math on an argument like WPF vs Apollo once more?
Summary
Don't assume X-Platform is the abolsute must in todays technological environment, identify whom your consumer base is, weigh up the reality of which customer base brings you the actual returns and then make an informed decision on technology vs taking the easy road and buying a X-Platform argument. If you do that, then I'm 100% behind you if you choose X-platform as your path forward.
Comments
Anonymous
March 06, 2007
"This then begs the question, is 6% of my consumer worth loosing?" 6%? 6+5=11. So the better question is "is 11% of my consumer worth losing?". It's not the best question, however. It discounts all the users of that 11%+ that fake their user agent because so many websites are written for one platform (IE6) and only check the user agent, even though the site works fine in other browsers. The other thing with cross platform is IE itself. For example, IE7 fixed a bugs in its rendering engine. This "broke" previously broken sites that rendered a specific way in IE6. If you strove for cross platform, you'd have a slightly smaller chance of the next version of IE breaking on your site.Anonymous
March 06, 2007
- I'd argue that the % of users that "fake" their user agent are relatively small as the average punter (end-consumer) aren't exactly mindful of that (opera is the only one that comes to mind that is considered mainstreamish).
- IE not sure I buy into that logic, I get your meaing but that context I'd argue against. As you're kind of saying that if it fits on all universal platforms then IE7 wouldn't of broken? Yet it irrespective of whether you did or didn't that'd be a flaw in that one agent and all you can do is hope? - hope is more the underpinning for X-Platform.
- Still, lets be conservative, let's say around 15% of the overall user base were non-windows specific. Let's also say around 45% of the Windows specific users were what we'd call "Transactional", meaning they provided value. Let's also say the same for the 15% (so 45% of the 15% end-users were transactional in some form). Again, the numbers just aren't stacking. I think we are entering an age where splintering off into subsets can be achieved majority of the time, and for the minority there is a path, and its placed inside either WPF/e or Apollo/Flex but should be limited to a minimal bulk of the application until numbers gain traction in this space. That way you're not burning the majority in way of the minority? (I'm all for X-Platform up until a point and finding that sweet spot comes back to growth potential vs actual consumer reality).
Anonymous
March 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 06, 2007
20% was a random number, based on yeild figures of a previous company I once worked for (hey it could be 99% of 6% but I seriously doubt you'll see 100% percentile of a platform demographic are transactional customers - it'd be rare). The point was to illustrate that although you're reaching 6% of a platform segment - the question that's asked is "are you really". The unknown is more contributed towards non-browsers (combination of bots/spiders and some other mutated reading agents of some kind). RSS Readers wouldn't factor into this example above as I excluded the RSS Feeds from the stats. The 1 in 7 argument comes back to a Risk Matrix (Consequences & Likelihood). I'd argue review your past history, if 1.2% of your 6% are for example "customers/clients/consumers" of worth - what are you really doing here? If i had a nickel/dollar for everyone of those 66% that did make it to my non-X-Platform i'd be a rich man so I could argue that piece. Overall, don't blindly follow the belief that X-platform is the way forward simply because it "sounds romantic" :) As for "Quite apart from that, the proportion of non-Windows users is continuously rising" - not entirely true and it comes down to which report you subscribe to :) I find it funny at times how people sprout "Apple OSX is going to take over the PC Market" when in 5 years they've probably moved around 2% give or take - even when Microsoft has been slumbering (working on Windows Vista). I'm not anti-Apple, but I've seen the numbers - again, they just aren't stacking and its coming back to a wanted belief that they are climbing instead of the reality - they just aren't.Anonymous
March 06, 2007
“ 20% was a random number, based on yeild figures of a previous company I once worked for (hey it could be 99% of 6% but I seriously doubt you'll see 100% percentile of a platform demographic are transactional customers - it'd be rare).” This is irrelevant. If the 20%, or 99%, or whatever, can be reasonably assumed to apply to the Windows segment as well, it’s a constant factor which falls out of the equation. It is only relevant if that number is different for users of different platforms. Apple has never shown any ambition to take over the PC market. There’s no need to take over the PC market. Taking over the PC market has nothing to do with the issue at hand.Anonymous
March 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 06, 2007
In the company I work for, Mac users make up about 5% of our userbase. But at the same time, Mac users spend much more money on average on our services than Windows users. So even though the percantage of total users is small, Mac users contribution to our baseline is significant, and for us it makes total sense to support them.Anonymous
March 07, 2007
Erki, That's great news! :) You've done your homework and you've found a valid case for X-Platform so go forth with the blessing of MS Mossyblog if that counts for anything (which it's very likely not to hehe). Now back to those who haven't done the number crunching and continue to sprout X-Platform arguments all over the net... :)Anonymous
March 07, 2007
I hesitate to even respond, since you are obviously trolling, but your logic is highly flawed. To assume that your sight is representative of the general consumer population is ridiculous - you are a technical evangelist, and you work for Microsoft. Thus the population of your readers is highly skewed towards people who care about technology in general and about Microsoft in particular. Here's a contrast for you. I work for Adobe, and 45% of my unique visitors (year to date) use Macs and 6% use Linux. Is that representative, and if so, should I stop supporting Windows users since the majority of my users don't use it? No, of course not.Anonymous
March 07, 2007
Sigh. "sight" should have been "site" - spell checkers...Anonymous
March 07, 2007
Actually sorry to say that MossyBlog.com up until Decemeber last year was 100% Adobe/Macromedia related. A lot of my hits etc came from MXNA :) So where I work is not relevant. I've also asked a few ex-Adobe employees about their blog stats before they joined Microsoft. I'll post them aswell. Sorry to burst your "conspiracy bubble" :(Anonymous
March 07, 2007
I didn't make any accusations of conspiracy - I'm questioning your personal motives for posting what you posted. [SB: Oh that's easy, I think Adobe are over-stating the balance of X-Platform as being an absolute must. I personally think its a bit of dubious that Apollo's X-Platform PR spin is simply pan-handling to the OSX Market and providing an inflated notion that they are massive in scale. I'm all for OSX Developers wanting equality online - but - will that help companyXYZ balance their general ledger? jury's out on that one]Anonymous
March 07, 2007
I just now noticed the obvious. Your graph breaks it down by OS. Not by browser. So it may be possible firefox has a larger share. In which case it's not as simple as Windows vs Mac OS X in the cross platform issues. It's also a matter of the browser involved. If you target Firefox, you're more likely to hit the Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X users. That's a very wide net to cast. And I still wonder, what if that entire 23% was Mac OS X and Linux users, and 0% of that chunk was Windows users? Hmm, for that 23%, are there a lot of/any "CFNetwork" instances? [SB: You're now confusing X-Browser with X-Platform. You're also missing the underlying point, stop, think about the demographic whom use your software and then make informed decisions on whether or not X-Platform is actually realistic. There is a marginal difference between "Potential" and "Reality"]Anonymous
March 07, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 07, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 07, 2007
I shared my stats with Scott last night. 90% Windows; 6% MacOS.Anonymous
March 07, 2007
Folks: I posted comments unde each response given so it reminds in context. I will also refer you back to the summary of the original post: "...Don't assume X-Platform is the abolsute must in todays technological environment, identify whom your consumer base is, weigh up the reality of which customer base brings you the actual returns and then make an informed decision on technology vs taking the easy road and buying a X-Platform argument. If you do that, then I'm 100% behind you if you choose X-platform as your path forward.." Meaning: As romantic and politically correct as being X-Platform sounds, realistically the numbers stack in favour of Windows based platforms. I didn't make that rule and I'm not happy with it to be openly honest but none the less the greater majority of Client-PC's in the world are using Windows based platforms as its native operating system. I mention this as I sat in on a conversation last week, hearing how much trouble a developer went to for making their SaaS (Software As A Service) X-Platform. I then asked whom are the audience of this software, the response was enterprise corporations. How many enterprise corporations do you know of that have Set Operating Environments that are X-Platform? It's great that the nobel cause of making X-Platform was there and kudos for doing so, just they spent more time making it so and with next to no pay off. It's not the first and sadly, last time i'll hear this happen. What's that saying again - "Right tool, Right job?"Anonymous
March 07, 2007
<em>"I think Adobe are over-stating the balance of X-Platform as being an absolute must."</em> Oh. Okay. Have fun, then! :) jd/adobeAnonymous
March 07, 2007
"What's that saying again - "Right tool, Right job?" And choosing the right tool will allow you to effortlessly support the widest audience while adding additional platform specific features. Right tool for the right job indeed. [SB: Keyword being effortlessly ;) ... ]Anonymous
March 07, 2007
I'll take the burn, I see you point. X-Browser vs X-Platform. In my short career out of Uni the browser has been the platform in my work so please forgive the bias. We can only hope there are enough people who do see a decent ROI for supporting the minority platforms so that they keep doing it and a bit of variety remains. At least enough to stop us getting arrogant and ignoring them altogether.Anonymous
March 07, 2007
Scott, err could it also be that since you are hosted by Microsoft and talk now about the joys of MS that the balance of visitors might have a vested interest in the joys of MS?Anonymous
March 07, 2007
Andrew: I get the feeling you didn't read the post ;) because if you had, and you of all people know MossyBlog.com prior to Microsoft employment was Adobe specific. So not sure what you're implying there but the stats aren't MS MossyBlog (which of course this blog has very strong Windows centric audience). Anywho :)Anonymous
March 08, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 08, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 08, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 08, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 10, 2007
The comment has been removed