Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Borland Comms - Part II

Re: Borland Comms - Part II


2004-10-30 09:08:54 PM
cppbuilder90
"Randall Parker" wrote...
Quote

1) They need to fix ALL of the v5 and v6 regression bugs and some of the
bugs that
even predated v5.
One of the things I tried to emphasize was fixing the bugs / supporting
Win32 first.
Quote
Do you think they understand that regression bugs and existing bugs of
long duration
are major contributing factors for why v5 and v6 sales were not better?
People were
willing to pay to upgrade to get LESS bugs not MORE bugs.
Yes, from what I can surmise I believe some understand -- but probably not
all.
Quote
I do not know what their timelines are for another BCB release.

That's the answer we are all waiting on.
Quote
2) If the next BCB release is a distant prospect then can they get the
resources for
a service pak?
That's a fair question, I didn't suggest this. However, I did encourage a
sooner rather than later release.
(Incidently, I referenced Guy Kawasaki -- recalling his keynote to the
Borland community several years ago at the BorCon Long Beach)
Quote

3) If they can do a service pak then ought to release betas of the service
pak to
allow it to be much more widely tested.
Beta testing was big on my list of suggestions, which relates to my comment
about a sooner rather than later release.
Quote
4) They ought to look at that thread I started on 2004-10-11 called "What
annoys you
most in BCB v6?" and then remove all the annoyances.

groups.google.com/groups&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&threadm=416d776f%241%40newsgroups.borland.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DWhat%2520annoys%2520you%2520most%2520in%2520BCB%2520v6%253F%26num%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg
If you could do me a favor and compile a list from that thread, I will
include it as part of the survey conducted by Mark Jacobs. Please note in
your list the number of people who identified problems (i.e., annoyances).
Thanks.
Quote

5) I would also recommend viewing the threads:
BCB v5 users: what BCB v6 bugs kept you from upgrading?

groups.google.com/groups&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&threadm=40bef354%40newsgroups.borland.com&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dborland.public.cppbuilder.non-technical%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26start%3D300
and:
BCB v6 users: What v6 bugs fixed in v9 would compel you to upgrade?

groups.google.com/groups&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&threadm=1n3tb0pg8aiv2235i3ba62qquk7j0dk1ro%404ax.com&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dborland.public.cppbuilder.non-technical%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26start%3D300

These might be good as well.
Quote
6) What they say on Dec 15 should be CLEAR and SUBSTANTIAL.
Agree
Quote
I do not want to have long lawyerly debates about the next message
from Borland
means. If they are just going to come out some some heavily caveated
lawyerese that
gives us nothing we can depend on then I'd just as soon they stay silent
until they
can be more concrete by, for example, releasing something like a service
pak beta or
a product alpha or something real.
I suggested that they release something tangible (i.e. an alpha) that
receives iterative updates, but that shouldn't mean they "sell" the "alpha"
as a product as they did with CBX, which clearly was sold before it was
ready.
BTW - I considered identifying the suggestions I shared in my blog post, but
the majority of them are restatements of key items in the letter,
cover-letter, and my "pitching the OCL" post.
 
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

"Russell Hind" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:418384d9$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
Personally, I'm not really ready to believe anything Borland say even if
it is in an official open letter, until a release is actually on the
shelves ready for me to buy. With the aforementioned compiler and gui
library, they've even shown that after public previews, they can chop
and change their minds.
As you say, even if they release something on Dec. 16, they will have
to convince me that they won't abandon it the next day.
Quote
And given the complete lack of bug fixes for CBX 1.0 over the last year,
I don't really have any confidence that even when actively supporting a
product, they don't actually support the product!
Absolutely. I think the whole CBX debacle turned me off with this company.
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

"Paul Gustavson" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:4183917e$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
We should know their "intentions" by Dec 15th -- or sooner. I'm not trying
to by an apologist for them, but consider that they are in listen mode
regarding the community's requirements, still compiling a feature list, and
in planning stages including resource allocation commitment & schedule. All
good signs by the way, but, from a Business 101 you don't share what you
don't yet know. Management must still make a decision, and until then, this
But from Business 102, you don't abandon current customers to dump
all of your resources into developing something that may potentially
have a market somewhere else. From Business 103, recapturing
previous customers who have since left is exponentially more difficult
than attracting new ones.
Sorry to sound so negative. I hope you guys have some effect with your
letter but Borland has a long way to go to recapture the confidence of the
C++ community. It's like they swapped the tables with MS from several
years ago when most C++ people laughed at MS and supported Borland
on non *nix platforms. It's just the opposite today.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

"Duane Hebert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote...
Quote
But from Business 102, you don't abandon current customers to dump
all of your resources into developing something that may potentially
have a market somewhere else.
Agree -- Business 101 and 102 should not be mutually exclusive.
Quote
From Business 103, recapturing
previous customers who have since left is exponentially more difficult
than attracting new ones.
Now that .NET is seen as a viable platform for C++, developers who gave up
on it for C# (and other languages) may ultimately return. This is a
compelling reason for Borland to return to BCB, and for users to follow
suite.
Quote
Sorry to sound so negative. I hope you guys have some effect with your
letter but Borland has a long way to go to recapture the confidence of the
C++ community. It's like they swapped the tables with MS from several
years ago when most C++ people laughed at MS and supported Borland
on non *nix platforms. It's just the opposite today.
I hear you.
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

"Paul Gustavson" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:4183a52f$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
Now that .NET is seen as a viable platform for C++, developers who gave up
on it for C# (and other languages) may ultimately return. This is a
compelling reason for Borland to return to BCB, and for users to follow
suite.
Well assuming that .NET is a viable platform for C++ (more than likely),
I agree that developers may become interested in it. I also imagine that
if there's interest in it Borland could be compelled to return to BCB. I'm
just not sure that this will imply that users will return to Borland. Hopefully
Borland can do something to regain trust. Even for those that don't support
Borland, it makes sense to have more players than MS in the arena for
the Windows OS.
Quote
I hear you.
I know. I wish you luck with your "open letter".
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

"Dennis Jones" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote

No kidding. Paul is not a Team B. member, has not signed a non-disclosure
agreement (that I know of), and is therefore under no real obligation to
keep the content of that conversation secret. Paul is no different from the
rest of us, other than the fact that his phone number is on the letterhead
(so to speak) of OUR open letter (or in the email to which the letter was
attached). What a crock.
If, in his discussion with Borland, Paul was asked not to reveal more
than he has, we can hardly expect him to do otherwise.
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

"Mika Söderholm" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Why can't you tell us who you talk to
It seems that we have at least one 'key' Borlander pulling our way.
Perhaps that person doesn't want to be identified publicly because it
would place him in an uncomfortable or disadvantaged position within
Borland.
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

"Paul Gustavson" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
- They are also considering how to involve the community to support the
production (i.e., to validate the product)
I think this is a key point. Keeping us involved with the upcoming
product will not only improve the product, but will serve to allay our
(well placed, IMHO) suspicions and fears. Openness will be Borland's
friend in this process.
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

Quote
4) They ought to look at that thread I started on 2004-10-11 called "What
annoys you
most in BCB v6?" and then remove all the annoyances.

groups.google.com/groups&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&threadm=416d776f%241%40newsgroups.borland.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DWhat%2520annoys%2520you%2520most%2520in%2520BCB%2520v6%253F%26num%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg
Let's not forget some of the top voted open bugs/suggestions listed in
Quality Central, that's the first place they will and should look?
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

Dennis Jones wrote:
Quote
No kidding. Paul is not a Team B. member, has not signed a
non-disclosure agreement (that I know of), and is therefore under no
real obligation to keep the content of that conversation secret.
Legally true but morally questionable.
It should not be necessary to use the power of the law to ask someone
to keep part of a conversation secret. Paul has shown himself to a
responsible, considerate individual. He is very likely to respect
Borland's wishes in this matter and I respect him for that.
--
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
[Bicester, Uk]
info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

Quote
But from Business 102, you don't abandon current customers to dump
all of your resources into developing something that may potentially
have a market somewhere else. From Business 103, recapturing
previous customers who have since left is exponentially more difficult
than attracting new ones.
From business 103.5:
It's easier to sell to existing customers than to new customers.
Borland is dumping on their existing BCB customers in the hope of
gaining some new BCBX customers.
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

"David Perkins" wrote...
Quote
From business 103.5:

It's easier to sell to existing customers than to new customers.
Business 103.5 --- I'd like to believe that they're back in tune with that
Radio Station :-)
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

If you're not saying anything, then don't post anything. Sorry, Paul, but this
is non-information AFAIAC. We already know BCB management are "looking into
it". Until they decide something firmly, then let's keep quiet. We're all very
accustomed to speculation on this NG, thankyou very much.
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
"Paul Gustavson" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
| www.simventions.com/gustavson/2004/10/borland-communication.html
 

Re:Re: Borland Comms - Part II

Quote

4) They ought to look at that thread I started on 2004-10-11 called
"What annoys you most in BCB v6?" and then remove all the annoyances.
Actually, if they want to look anywhere fot things to fix, they should
start in their own offices looking at their own shoddy business practices.
1) The Open Letter fiasco. Shameful, shameful, shameful!!!! Don't
get me started on this.
2) The news blackout on C++ products. More shameful!! Is this somehow
supposed to sell products?
3) The marketing of CBX as a successor to BCB. What a disaster! Who
were they fooling, other than themselvs? This served to do nothing but
chase away many faithful BCB customers who really want good Win32
programming tools. This is something that they can and suould fix
immediatly, regardless of the direction they choose come Dec 15. They
sould rename CBX to something like "Standard C++ Cross-Platform Studio."
4) The Anti-marketing of BCB. Even though BCB is still sold in the
Borland online store, it seems to take a rocket scientist to find any
BCB product information on their web site. What is this all about? Do
they actually want to sell LESS product? BCB should be given it's
marketing place alongside other profitable Borland products until the
day it is no longer for sale, be it before or after Dec 15.