Version oddity?
So Sun is now playing the up the version number to impress people game.
Sun announced today the Beta 2 release of the J2SE 5.0 software development kit (JDK), which includes tools such as compilers and debuggers necessary for developing applets and applications and the Java Runtime Environment (JRE). I
Not that this is new; ParcPlace jumped from VW 3.1 to VW 5i - and that was two pieces of marketing led silliness:
- The "5" was there because IBM was at version 5 of VAST - and they didn't want to look "behind" with a version 4
- The "i" was for "internet" - which was amusing all by itself, since at the time we didn't support any of the common net protocols (although we did have a browser plugin)
Lots of companies do this, and it makes me wonder - who do they they think they are fooling? Does Sun think that people will forget that it's really 1.5? Like ParcPlace thought that the "i" was enough to convince people? Like many other software firms seem to think? This kind of thing is just silly.
Comments
Microsoft/IBM did this best
[Mike Brazinski] June 28, 2004 19:09:12.289
My favorite is still an oldie. MS releases MS-DOS 6.0, IBM then releases PC-DOS 6.1, Microsoft releases MS-DOS 6.2. IBM has an odd idea and releases PC-DOS 6.21 and then Microsoft releases 6.22. Classic!
As for Java, why is the 2 still lurking in the beginning? Java 2 never happened! Java 2 was suppose to be a new language/API that was to be written 5 years after Java 1.0's release. It was suppose to take lessons learned from the first 5 years. It was not intended to be source code compatible. Yes, I know what happened. Java was far more successful than intended and they couldn't afford to break backwards compatibility. But I think now would be a good time to lose the pointless '2'.Meanings of numbers
[petrilli] June 29, 2004 9:26:47.282
Well, I've been going through this whole issue with my company, and a release we have scheduled. The reality is, version numbers are nothing but marketing. Honestly, given the massive upheavel that was going on in Java in the early days, and how little REAL compatibility was maintained, it's laughable that it's still on the 1.x track. There is, of course, the Emacsian (and SAS and a few others) option of simply monotonically increasing numbers. Release 1 is followed by 2, by 3, etc, and not getting into the X.Y.Z release issues.
[isomer] June 29, 2004 10:59:45.387
Why do stores price things as $2999.99 instead of $3000.00 after all these years? Who do they think they are fooling?
Us. And it seems to work.
Pricing side thread
[Mike Brazinski] June 29, 2004 12:36:06.682
When I was home shopping a few years back, I saw many homes listed for prices like $299,000 and $324,900. After looking over the real estate agent's shoulder, I realized that when the customer gave price range, let's say under $325K, the agent would happily enter >325000, skipping any houses at exactly $325,000.
I suspect retail pricing at $99.99 or whatever also benefits the same way. If I'm going to mysimon.com or something like that and say I want to pay less than $100 for the product, $99.99 will hit, $100 won't. Most non-techies either don't get or, more likely, don't worry about "less than or equals to". In the end, if you want to sell your product, giving up that penny may greatly improve sales.