pk commented on my last entry:

Wait a minute… where did you back up that it *could* have been written on another platform? Maybe yes, maybe no but let’s keep the playing field level.

Well firstly I based it on the fact that I’ve written a similar application on OS X myself which seems like pretty convincing evidence.  Secondly you could create a mathematical proof based around the fact that it would be possible to develop such an application on a Turing machine, however I’m on holidays and that’s a lot of work.  Finally it’s pretty easy to provide commercial examples of this being done on both Linux and Mac OS X as pb did in the comments on Scoble’s blog:

I’m not so sure "at a higher cost" is accurate. There are plenty of kiosk vendors on other platforms. Muze for instance is Linux-based. Even the Mac is represented by Touchstand. And think of the things like Tivo and Replay that would have been impossible on Windows.

(I disagree with him that things like the Tivo and Replay would be impossible on Windows – mostly because of the existence of Microsoft’s Tivo-like system.)

The cost benefit analysis we should be starting from was done by Amoeba Music. Why did they choose to develop it on Windows? Just because they own Microsoft stock? I doubt it. Most likely it was cheaper to develop and/or deploy.

How do you know that Amoeba Music did a cost benefit analysis?  Most likely the only computer they had in the shop was Windows based, their only experience was with Windows based computers and so they went out looking for a set of Windows kiosks.

Or perhaps they were already locked into Microsoft’s proprietary protocols because they already had a Windows based server?  Sure that would make it cheaper to develop a Windows based solution for them, but it definitely doesn’t make Microsoft cool – it makes them decidedly uncool.  Furthermore, had they done a long term cost benefit analysis before purchasing that Windows based server they may or may not have found it cheaper to go with a different solution.  At this stage we don’t know that they did a cost benefit analysis at all.

The reality is that it’s simply not possible to comment on cost of development when all we know about the system in question is that it’s a kiosk type thing in a music store that allows you to sample tracks and we have a pretty lousy picture of some people standing at terminals (which apparently are running this software, it’s hard to tell from the picture).  I certainly wouldn’t be prepared to offer advice on what the best development methodology or set of tools for the project are based on that information and anyone who is is obviously blindly towing the company line.  It very much makes me question the integrity and reliability of those who do make such claims.

Similarly, it’s crazy for the people in Scoble’s comments to be arguing over the cost and productivity benefits of Visual Studio compared with other development environments.  The requirements of the project need to be sorted out before you have any hope of determining which language is best suited to the project let alone which IDE is best.

I think perhaps the point of my original comment may have been misinterpreted.  When I said "So Scoble, care to back up that rhetoric?", I probably should have phrased it as "Scoble, you’re full of shit".  I phrased it as I did because I can’t entirely rule out the possibility that Robert took a few hours while he was there to sit down with the developers and discuss why Windows was used and what they went through.  It’s even possible that he walked out of there with a copy of the cost benefit analysis they did.  I find either of those situations exceptionally unlikely however since if he had he would have been crowing about it in his blog.  So in the interests of being polite and in the off chance that there was some actual factual content or even half decent logical explanation behind these claims, I asked for supporting material instead of just flatly rejecting the assertion.  It’s called being skeptical but open-minded.

So to sum up, there is currently no evidence known to me which shows that Microsoft played any significant part in or provided any significant benefit to the development of the "cool software".  As such, Microsoft do not deserve a "cool" badge because of this project.  I explicitly refrain from suggesting that Microsoft were detrimental to the development or that the development could have been done better on other platforms.  I do claim that it would have been possible on other platforms.