Why don't companies like Borland see the obvious? [modified]
-
Actually, it's quite simple really. Many companies suffer from the "wait and see" mentality. They wait on a new technology to start developing on it until it's "proven", but what this means is that by the time they get a product out the door it's almost (or is) obsolete. Let's use a few examples. WordPerfect waited for a "Windows" version of WordPerfect until after Word had completely decimated their chances of getting a foot hold. They wanted to see if this "windows" fad took off. The same thing happened with 32 bit applications for Windows 95. Borland took a number of years before they started work on their .NET version of Delphi and C# at all. Basically, they needed to see their market share start to dwindle, or conversely see their competitors market share start to rise before they would take action, and by then it was simply too late. Technology is no place for wimps. Bet the farm early because if you don't you won't have one to bet.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Many companies suffer from the "wait and see" mentality. They wait on a new technology to start developing on it until it's "proven"
Microsoft, by contrast, tend to churn out a first version as quickly as possible. Version 1 is usually crap. But they keep plugging away until they produce a good enough version. Interestingly, there have been various times in the past when Gates virtually invited competitors, or potential ones, to snuff him out, e.g., Lotus and WordPerfect re: Windows. They ignored him and then he all but wiped them out, or marginalised them, instead. He only gives you one chance.
Kevin
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm getting real tired of Visual Studio (2005), and I would love to have a real alternative. Do you know anything about C++ Builder?
Yeah, it sucks, which is why I'm griping so loudly. I want a lean, fast development environment that does what VS 2005 does except faster and better. Borland didn't even come close with Turbo C++ and Turbo C#. What bugs me is that the flaws in VS 2005 are obvious and have been that way since the first public beta around February 2005. To do something fundamentally better than VS 2005 with the existing code base they had, should have been a walk in the park.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Well at last another man that thinks loudly about this. If we take off the gossip thing then: 1.Companies like Oracle [JDevelop], Borland [Most is IDEs] and other big companies should at least take the biggest competitor (Microsoft) ideas and make them the lowest denominator and add more with speed. 2.check the managers for the stocks they have in other companies + make a department to check all products and what market share are they taken and from that either fire or change the managers. 3.the VS2005 is very beautiful and powerful but it could be much better and it will not because the simple competing IDEs, at least for competitors either stop their products or make one product that most of the big companies work in it, or simply buy the small free products on the market [SharpDev, or PrimalScript]... 4.even if I do not like MS but most of its products have enough ideas that can pull clients to them and that’s as of marketing is a good idea [we are a need driven market], so either others do at least the same and better, or quite. ps, it a shame that small free code IDEs like [SharpDev] is better than big companies IDE's. :((
May god give u good health and knowledge.