Board index » delphi » Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations


2007-11-06 01:17:38 PM
delphi40
"John Kaster (CodeGear)" writes:
Quote
I.P. Nichols writes:

>FTR to avoid any possible misunderstanding I want to make it
>absolutely clear that in the partial sentence above I was quoting
>from a message posted by a CodeGear employee!

yes, sorry for the poor misquote. I didn't mean to attribute that to
you.
Thanks for the clarification, it is much appreciated.
Quote
>IIRC you joined Borland not too long after the release of Delphi 1 in
>1995

To add to the record, I joined Borland in 1997.
I knew of you long before you joind Borland when you were a maven in the
Clipper world, the developer of Xphiles and coauthor with Ted Blue et al of
the book "Delphi Database Development".
Quote
The
Internet Services department was just formed on Oct 8, 2007, with me as
its architect and manager. you will see some results of our recent labors
just before CodeRage starts ;)
Congratulations on your new job. It sounds challenging and with less travel
involved. <g>
 
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

"Alessandro Federici" writes:
Quote

Above your message is my message, not his: that is what tricked the whole
thing <G>
Guess I should have said above the above...<G>
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

David Erbas-White writes:
Quote
At one time I had signed an agreement with Borland. Borland, after the
fact, unilaterally changed the terms. JK suggested I contact their
legal department, which I did. I never received a single reply from them.

It wasn't important enough an issue to pursue, but I don't have 'happy
feelings' about (Borland) legal, and I haven't seen anything done by
Codegear legal to change that opinion.
I thought CodeGear legal = Borland legal. (Explains why your opinion
hasn't changed. ;))
Edmund
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Kostya writes:
Quote
I think that the whole idea of
having user to ask permission
to sell/transfer license is
utterly ridiculous. I am personally
getting quite sick of all those
companies trying peer in my
backyard
It isn't ridiculous if you realize that the
product that you have in your hand *isn't*
yours. It is still CG's (or in
this case, Borland's since it is Delphi 7).
Therefore, having been granted a license to use
a software, it is naturally understandable
that you ask permission to the owner in order
to re-sell the product.
I don't have problems asking permission. The
problem I have is with the licensing agreements
being so damn legalese to the point that you
have to be utterly sure of every single possible
eventuality of how you use the software. The
problem I have is the possibility of getting
inconsistent answers from people within the
same organization.
I'm not a lawyer (which explains why I
normally read the license to understand
the basic gist and then hope in good
faith that the company isn't going to
come back to{*word*222}me).
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Robert Wachtel writes:
Quote
Marius writes:
>We bought delphi-php, its kind of disappointing according to my
>colleagues, its now another dust catcher next to some other borland
>products (and dbase :P)

Same here...

Ditto here.
Edmund
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Ed writes:
Quote

It isn't ridiculous if you realize that the
product that you have in your hand *isn't*
yours. It is still CG's (or in
this case, Borland's since it is Delphi 7).

That is the part, that is ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as excepting such customer exploitations as something not outrageous...
You wouldn't buy a car when you couldn't sell it when you want a new one. Why should that not apply to
software?
Quote

Therefore, having been granted a license to use
a software, it is naturally understandable
that you ask permission to the owner in order
to re-sell the product.

lol, you even manage to let it sound like something very generous by CG, *woohoo* you are even allowed
to use the software. Now that is very kind of them, isn't it? *g*
Sometimes, I am just so happy to live in a country where corporations cannot do such {*word*99} to exploit
people.
Stuff like this pisses me off, but fortunately I do not live in the US... :-)
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) writes:
Quote
IanH writes:

>Really not meant as a pop at you Nick - just my own sad perception
>of where the priorities of the CodeGear business / management lie.

Well, I don't think it is fair to say it is CodeGear's doing. It
isn't. We all said from the very beginning that it would be a long
process to undo what had been done.
I didn't expect resolution on all fronts the moment the sign changed on
the door. Some of the steps, such as the renewed focus on quality, were
being started in the DevCo days, and continued by CG. These things are
to be applauded, and not diminished by the lack of progress in other
areas.
Quote
>I had hoped that the focus on quality and the U-turn on the
>.NET/Win32 strategy was based on a renewed commitment to
>developers. I now feel as if the only time developers appear to
>matter is when we punish you financially - not a long-term game
>plan.

Well, I personally think that is totally unfair. I feel like we've
made a lot of progress in a lot of areas. I think, as noted above,
that we still have a long way to go.
CodeGear has had sufficient time to formulate it is own commercial
policies and engagement with it is customers. I do not think that
progress has been made in these areas to match the technical progress.
Different people are involved - it is not like you can only improve
customer experience when all the technical issues have been addressed.
A few examples:
Start with a personal favourite: how hard can it be to formulate an
EOL/escrow policy for products containing Software Activation? This
typifies the occasional inability of your organisation to either reach
a decision or communicate it effectively.
Another oldie-but-goodie: the lack of a concerted effort to capture any
disgruntled VB(Visual Basic) coders out there, with a custom on-ramp and a decent
marketing campaign.
The Turbos: good idea, questionable execution, lack of joined-up
thinking, no follow-up.
It was a nice break from the past when Jim Douglas started blogging.
The first couple of posts gave us insight into your business, and a
reassuring feeling that things were being addressed. This was quickly
replaced by vague marketing shout-outs, and then...tumbleweed drifting
across the internet. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?
The sum of these (and other) parts tells me that the most important
change - renewed commitment to the Delphi product - has clearly been
achieved by the spin-out, but a lot of old imperial like-it-or-lump-it
attitudes from the Borprise past have been carried along.
Regards
Ian
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Quote
"Borland is only willing to grant you this License if you obtained the
Product from Borland or a Borland authorized reseller.
If they provide a party with consent to sell then you have authorization.
The only reason to have the consent in writing is in case it is contested.
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

David Erbas-White writes:
Quote
I think you have made tremendous progress at solving some of the
technical challenges, in terms of making a better product, being a
(large) bit more responsive to bugs found (not as responsive as many
would like, but MORE responsive), etc.
Agreed.
Quote
I've seen little evidence that the marketing/legal aspects of the
company have changed or will change.
Also (sadly) agreed.
Quote
It took several months to post a roadmap.
Far too long. Examination of the guidance documents clearly
demonstrated that the revenue recognition issue was being overplayed.
The eventual publication of a roadmap (indeed a welcome, good-quality
one) effectively showed that the previous stance was indeed
overly-defensive.
Quote
There is STILL (and it is been a year or so since the
discussion started) no posted response about 'escrow' for software
activation (let alone any steps being taken to remove that #$@!*).
Agreed, but you needed to use more swear-words ;-)
Quote
The license is more restrictive than ever.
ISTR that the Turbo license was actually improved, to allow shareware
authors to use the free version? A minor thing, but to be welcomed (but
only IIRC).
Quote
The nonsense regarding
transfer of licenses does no benefit.
None whatsoever.
Beyond the license transfer/resale issue (which is a whole discussion
in itself), if it was your company, what would you spend to avoid the
mess of public fallouts with some of your most well-known users?
Somebody at CG should be forced to do a cost-benefits analysis of the
Simon Kissel spat (regardless of where blame should be apportioned).
Quote
I will add that on the combined 'technical/marketing' side of things,
many of the decisions seem 'not well thought out' (to be kind).
Things such as the abnormally long installation, need to keep old
files to do a patch, extraordinarily poor installation
screens/instructions, lead one to believe that no one at Codegear has
a clue about these things.
Maybe the installation was deemed to be a "one step backward to allow
two steps forward" deal, and the maths was off a bit.
Less impressive are the difficulties people faced in getting media
kits, or ISO images. Purely a business issue.
Quote
And while I appreciate (REALLY) the efforts made to improve the
documentation, it is still sub-par...
Consider when the help was destroyed. Think what we would have
available now if they had just started a wiki project at the time,
using the old help as a source (I know that this is not the whole
solution, but surely providing just a local copy of this would at least
help users who are stuck in the dark). They could have done this when
DevCo was set up. They could have done this when CG was spun out.
They just chose not to.
Some things were more important than the user problems that they had
caused.
Go figure.
Ian
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Steve Thackery writes:
Quote
>There is no reasonable up-side to this 'requirement' that licenses
>can't be sold/transferred.

AMEN TO THAT! can not the people at CodeGear see that issues like
this, AND the stupid activation thing, LOSES good will and REDUCES
sales? "No reasonable up-side" says it all.
The only customer goodwill that they are interested in is the kind that
spends.
They think: a legal/thriving second-hand market may hurt sales of the
current version. That is why the software is sold as a license, not as
a product.
Sadly, someone in Borland/CodeGear has some information that "proves"
that they are losing $X in sales due to piracy. They don't/won't share
their data.
You may make the point that not everybody using a cracked version would
buy a legit version, but that will be downplayed. FWIW, I think their
main concern is companies who buy one license and then use it for a few
developers. I am sure that this is not an imaginary situation.
The only solution they can think of is Activation. Adding Activation
costs them whatever they paid for the technology/infrastructure/upkeep.
They think it results in additional sales.
They have no figures saying that N customers chose NOT to upgrade
because of Activation. They have no figures that say that a reasonable
EOL solution (distributing "Activation servers" to customers, escrow
etc) would generate any sales - so they don't do it.
One solution is to develop in a VM. Not only is this reckoned by a lot
of people to be a better way for developers to operate, it also allows
you to preserve your development environment in a safe manner.
Unfortunately for CG, it also means that this VM can again be casually
copied around a department and reused.
At this point you may wonder why they persist in using this technology
;-)
Ian
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

none writes:
Quote
Farshad writes:
>"IanH"
>>Can you explain to me what value we get for keeping these people in
>>jobs?
>
>They did a great job in convincing me that I shouldn't buy a D2007
>copy.

They saved you $2500 :-)
So maybe Farshad should pay their bonus ;-)
Ian
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Craig Stuntz [TeamB] writes:
Quote
The restriction on reselling licenses is, IMHO, truly a bad thing.
Any idea who takes responsibility for these things? Nick? Michael
Swindell? Jim Douglas? or does it get dumped off onto some anonymous
committee that can take the blame for all those policies that nobody
seems to like, but never seem to change?
Ian
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Paul Scott writes:
Quote
Perhaps this particular point is indeed not worthy of such a long
(and growing) thread. That to me, suggests that the situation is at
one of two extremes...

Either...

a) The vast majority of CG users are so completely satisfied with
absolutely everything else that they are obsessing about trivialities.

or..

b) This outpouring is the latest symptom of a widespread and growing
resentment/rage/disillusionment that there have not really been
enough significant and visible changes in company direction and
attitude since the bad-old Borland days and the "honeymoon period"
is coming to an end.

I am not a CodeGear director, but I know which of those hypotheses I
would be worrying about.
I do not believe they are worried. That is what worries me.
Ian
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Steve Thackery writes:
Quote
>Unfortunately for CG, it also means that this VM can again be
>casually copied around a department and reused.
>
>At this point you may wonder why they persist in using this
>technology

Actually I have used a VM for development, but prefer to be able to
reinstall Delphi directly into my OS, especially when I have just
upgraded it (to Vista, in my case).

Absurd though it may sound, I am seriously thinking of downloading a
CRACKED copy of Delphi 2007 just so that I am insured against CodeGear going
under or being sold off. Bearing in mind that I have paid real money
out of my own pocket for the product, I don't feel there is anything
morally wrong.
Like you I'd have no m{*word*203}problem using a cracked version of
something I have legitimately purchased: my concern would be any
"extras" hidden by the cracker.
Quote
But is it utterly absurd that CodeGear's policies and processes drive
its customers to such lengths. I know I am not the only one thinking
about it (or has done it) - in a discussion some months ago in this
group quite a few people here quietly admitted that they "might" have
"considered" the same thing.
Crazy isn't it? Punish the legitimate customer, do not impede the
committed pirate user.
The official purchase could be the thing that grants you access to
extra content, newsgroups, bonus features, betas, special customer
programs etc. This may be enough to maintain a high rate of legitimate
sales to lone developers (most of whom I'd wager are fairly honest
anyway). They are then left with the problem of departmental copying
(and only where people are unable to share a VM). How many companies
with multiple developers sanction running pirate software?
I would bet that Activation results in far fewer additional sales than
whatever CodeGear believe the number is.
Ian
 

Re: ping CodeGear Public Relations

Quote
Unfortunately for CG, it also means that this VM can again be casually
copied around a department and reused.

At this point you may wonder why they persist in using this technology
Actually I have used a VM for development, but prefer to be able to reinstall
Delphi directly into my OS, especially when I have just upgraded it (to Vista,
in my case).
Absurd though it may sound, I am seriously thinking of downloading a CRACKED
copy of Delphi 2007 just so that I am insured against CodeGear going under or being
sold off. Bearing in mind that I have paid real money out of my own pocket
for the product, I don't feel there is anything morally wrong.
But is it utterly absurd that CodeGear's policies and processes drive its
customers to such lengths. I know I am not the only one thinking about it
(or has done it) - in a discussion some months ago in this group quite a few
people here quietly admitted that they "might" have "considered" the same
thing.
SteveT