> "David Erbas-White" <✉arachneering.com> wrote in message
> > I'm more looking at the situation that missing a quarterly target to
> > enhance an annual target may be the 'prudent' move. I'm not
> > suggesting making anything riskier, just to change the perspective
> > slightly.
>
> Plus, that makes the assumption that giving info out harms sales in
> the first place. They havent sold that to me yet. One could equally
> speculate that by being overly secretive, they're driving sales away
> because developers will want a sense of security about the future of
> the dev tool they choose to invest in. The thing to keep looking at
> is that Delphi went from a main stream development tool to a very
> niche product over about 5 years - while taking the current
> 'secretive' approach.
>
> Another thing to keep in mind... there's no mac or (active) linux
> delphi compiler. So they wouldnt be harming sales of their mac and
> linux compiler if they released more info about them. If anything,
> they'd be keeping people from jumping ship.
It's part of the overall product line, so it *does* affect it.
> Also... Could it be that releases are just too frequent? A yearly
> release is a pretty fast pace. I can understand Embarc wanting to
> get a new release or two out the door to show they're on the ball
> with their new aquisition... but if upgrades are really hurt by
> announcements of the next version... maybe thats because new
> versions are so frequent that people can wait? Perhaps its time to
> slow things down, and have less frequent releases that have more
> pronounced changes, making the incentive to upgrade more evident?
> Its one thing to put off an upgrade for a few months, but another to
> put it off a few years.
Again, we have to balance out the needs of customers, the evoloving
marketplace, the shifting technologies, and our overriding need to keep
the lights on and continue producing product. We can only plan ahead by
looking at past data and performance. Of course, we all would *love* to
see that sudden unforseen "spike", but you have to make your plans and
budgets based on what you know about the past performance.
> One more commment - the concern seems to be for losing 'upgrades'.
> All well and good, but if they are so reliant on upgrades (or what I
> like to call, milking their customers), perhaps its an indicator they
> arent forcusing enough on reaching new customers.
You're free to believe this or not, however the perspective from *my*
side of the fence is markedly different. Too much information, too
early *does* hinder sales of the current release. As I've already
stated, I've literally seen this play out on several occasions, and it
ain't pretty...
I do take issue with the notion of "milking the customer." We provide a
new version, and you're free to buy the upgrade or not. You're under no
obligation to purchase. Our job is to make it *compelling* enough for
you to purchase. Sounds like a business to me. If you consider us
taking advantage of the fact that a portion of the customer base
*chooses* of their own volition to upgrade to every new release, then,
you got us... we're profiting from their choices. I would also assume
that they got something of value in return; a shiney new product
release.
--
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer