> Allen,
>
> Sorry about the delay in replying to your question, I've been away
> and when I got back there are so many posts to skim - and then I
> found this (and several other) bons mots had not actually been
> delivered but had somehow got stuck in my Outbox.
>
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:27:02 -0000, Allen Bauer
> <✉spicedham.codegear.com> wrote:
>
> > What would make you think that we're open to suggestions?
>
> The very fact that you are contributing here is a good start! (and
> Nick and Michael Swindell - although Mr Rozlog does seem to have gone
> quiet recently)
>
> But I would guess that you will have a long, uphill struggle to
> regain trust from long-time customers who have been burned in the
> past. So if you want to minimise that timescale, you're going to have
> to open up "above and beyond".
We are all too painfully aware of this very thing. Its isn't going to
happen overnight, and we have a lot to prove. All we can do is continue
to try to make the best decisions we can.
> Personally, I think it comes down to "you" making it clear to "us"
> that you realise that...
As to the size of the company, I can certainly have my own opinions on
this one (below).
> 1) You're no longer a small company - which can be excused if it
> doesn't provide the full service.
>
> 2) You're no longer a large company - which can dictate what (and
> when) customers +must+ accept.
I'd say that we're in a particularly tough place in terms of our size.
We're too big to be "small." IOW, we should be making some decisions
based on being a larger company. On the other side, we're also too
small to be "big." So we still have to be quick, agile an responsive to
the market. That is a really tough thing to balance. We're still
figuring it out... A clear example of this is how we're trying to get
our roadmaps out publicly.
> 3) Stop putting all the blame on to the previous management - While a
> lot of bad things did happen back then, the tactic of blaming all the
> current troubles on the previous management loses its efficacy very,
> very quickly (and you've had much longer than Obama) - even more so
> when many of the names are still the same.
Not all the blame is being placed on them. However, the damage that was
done and the scar-tissue that has built up will take a while to fix. I
don't think we're perfect, but I *do* think we are moving the right
direction. We've been out from under Borland's thumb for a mere 1.5
years. While that is considered eons in "Internet time," it is still
going to be very hard to undo nearly a decade of "fun" while with
Borland.
I have to admit that it is really hard for me to maintain some
perspective on that whole era and not be embittered. That is my "cross
to bear." However, I will "set the record" straight when there seems to
be some sentiment of "nothing has changed because the same bozos are in
charge."
> I don't really want to post an exhaustive list, but off the top of my
> head, communication about...
>
> 1) Roadmaps - yes, they are difficult and yes, you'll get hammered if
> you don't meet the deadlines. Maybe you could take advice from some
> of your partners who do seem capable of producing roadmaps +and+
> shipping product every three months...
> http://www.remobjects.com/ROadmap.aspx
Since there is a lot of strategic planning going on internally (more is
happening today, AAMOF), we really, really have to make sure our ducks
are in a row before we roll things out. I know it sounds like a brush
off, but trying to eat a half-baked cake is pretty gross ;-). (See the
above about the company size)
> 3) Support of previous versions of your product - Even at the most
> generous reading, RAD Studio 2009 was only in "Active Support" for
> ten months http://support.codegear.com/article/37740. Not everyone
> wants to (or is capable of) upgrading 15 years of legacy software
> that often.
There are some hotfixes we're looking at releasing for RS2009. I don't
know the full scope or the timescale yet, but I know some are in the
works.
I wish we were a larger company, and might be able to have a separate
"maintenance team" that could provide fixes and patches. We try and do
the best we can. Regardless, if you've purchased a support contract, we
*will* support the product in accordance with the contract and have, in
fact, provided custom patches and solutions in the past.
> 4) Active contribution from EMBT employees...
> a. in these newsgroups - I'm full of admiration for the help that
> Peter, Wayne, Rudy and others provide for free - but it is your
> product after all.
While we don't have a dedicated "newsgroup team" a lot EMBT employees
do at least read these groups.
> b. following up QC reports rather than passively sitting back waiting
> for user input.
I know, personally, that we *do* follow up on many QC reports and have
them brought to our attention all the time. I also know that the team
managers spend a large portion of time mining QC. Every entry has to be
triaged, which means that some will continue to sit. If every report
were the highest priority, then *none* of them are.
That being said, if there are specific ones you feel have been
overlooked, please bring them up here. One or more of the highly
capable QC admins can look at those reports and ensure they're ready
for internal consumption.
> > Remember,
> > listening and considering input, is not equal to agreeing with or
> > acting on said input.
>
> Yes, I do realise!
>
> If you have been, thanks for listening.
I hope I have been listening. And thank you for taking the time to
respond. I hope I've respected that by being as equally detailed in my
response.
--
Allen Bauer
Embarcadero Chief Scientist
http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer