6 posts • joined 2 Apr 2008
Reading it was like being beaten with the softest of clue bats for 8 pages. Good work
Salesforce actually implements all of those open standards you mention. I'm not disagreeing that they have a customer lock-in strategy, but really this announcement is just a way of allowing their customers to expose their data in an easy fashion. You could do it via those standards on your own hardware and all that entails, or you can just expose it on infrastructure you don't have to worry about.
"Wan't to access your data in the way that you want without restriction?"
For some customers, that's not their be-all-and-end-all. They're willing to compromise on this front to benefit on others. More fool them? They pays their money, they makes their choice...
The mark-up language (Visualforce) is to cut down the time you spend making a page; rather than having to code everything on the page, you can quickly use the pre-built components. When someone view the page, it's rendered into HTML. It also has hooks so that displaying information pulled from the database (and possibly changed before display) is easy.
As in my earlier post, it's not Salesforce trying to be a webhost, it's about them letting their customer expose data within their system on a public website.
The per user cost is for the platform rather than just the "Sites" functionality. There are people that are already using Salesforce and this new feature will allow them to create public facing websites in an MVC fashion where the model is the data they're already using in Salesforce.
I don't think the proposition is "come use Salesforce to host your website", it's more "If you're already using Salesforce and you'd like to expose some of your data (e.g. product catalogue) on a public website, you can do that now."
Out of context...
They didn't say they weren't important enough, they said they weren't important enough to risk breaking Firefox so close to the 3.0 release by rushing in fixes to boost the test score.
I'd check what MS said about IE but the page isn't loading for me at the moment.
I glanced over the BBC PDF used to prove DAB is four times more expensive - all I can see is a table that say the direct cost of DAB for 07/08 is £6 million (+3.6 million for local transmission), £9.2 million for AM and £12.3 million for FM
The whole article reads like someone with an axe to grind. There was a similar "DAB disaster-ton!" story about a month ago that had a "Thanks for you comments of agreement in my last story" opening with a link to said comments. In fact the thread seemed more pro-DAB than anti. It all makes it kind of hard to take the arguments seriously.
- Opportunity selfie: Martian winds have given the spunky ol' rover a spring cleaning
- Spanish village called 'Kill the Jews' mulls rebranding exercise
- NASA finds first Earth-sized planet in a habitable zone around star
- New Facebook phone app allows you to stalk your mates
- Battle of the Linux clouds! Linode DOUBLES RAM to take on Digital Ocean