I think this back and forth discussion actually revolves around
something no one has specified. Namely, how does a manufacturer
choose between between profits and customer loyalty?
Bringing out new/improved versions (so customers have to buy to keep
up) brings revenue. Keeping backwards compatibility reduces revenue
somewhat but maintains customer loyalty so they'll buy future updates.
But what if the manufacturer decides to build a truck instead of a
little two-seater? (Read: Apple II to Mac) And the truck is both
spiffy and powerful. Should there be backward compatibility here too?
The manufacturer is always making choices like these; customers have
to put up with it and make their own choices. It's a rare and
heartening find when a manufacturer actually works for the benefit of
its customers. It all depends on the business plan.
Maybe too simple, but not far wrong.
-yoram
On Sep 27, 2011, at 8:01 AM, James Schenken wrote:
Let's go back into history and look at the first hardware/software
break for
Apple - the Apple II to Mac conversion.
Total break in both hardware and software - neither could be moved
forward
or backward.
At the time, Apple offered the Mac/Lisa developers platform and I
applied (
and was willing to pony up the $7500 they wanted { that amount was
40% of my
annual income at the time }). Apple looked at my proposed
application and
said "No Thanks we don't want folks like you doing things like
that". My
application was a small business management system / cash register
that
would totally automate a business. I built the first one for the
IBM PC
environment before any of the ubiquitous pc cash registers existed.
Unfortunately I wasn't good at the business of selling but that's
another
story.
Can't speak to the issue of software compatibility from that point
forward.
Dumped my Apple II, bought a PC box and never looked back.
