[mattgreen]

>No, since the business objective is to make money. The >software is the means to do that, and the choices you make >today limit the markets that you can expand into.

I guess then it's a question of the benefit of taking a tactical advantage vs. the opportunity cost of that decision (including the subsequent re-write)?

I would say that the risk of limiting future markets (or more specifically a prohibitive cost of entry into said markets) is only one of many risks that need to be considered in the decision making process.

Surely there are downsides to the inevitable re-invention of what a framework does if you roll-your-own? It's not a one-way bet.

The software choices we make also enable options whilst at the same time limit others - it's a trade off.

>If you decide that you're making a mobile app for android, >then you are going to have to do a bunch of work (possibly >including re-implementing the app) to get into the iphone >or desktop market.

That's an interesting case (one I find myself peering at currently). Isn't the only real option to suck-up the fact that you'll need 3 versions on 3 platforms - or - build a product in a market that doesn't have diversity of platform as an issue (such as a browser-delivered app)? [That could be an argument against native apps on devices.]