Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)


2004-04-14 07:18:42 PM
cppbuilder31
Duane Hebert wrote:
Quote
TeamB is here to offer us technical support and I think they do a
great job of that. I don't think they should be held accountable for
Borland's marketing/management decisions.
Oh, I don't disagree with that. And most of them don't try to justify
the unjustifiable.
Quote
I understand the
frustration level as well as anyone and I agree, it must be a
difficult position for these guys. I imagine that they do it for
those astronomical bonuses <g>
Nah, when they behave they are allowed out of the cages. <g,d&r>
--
Ken
planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/
* this is not a sig *
 
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

Thank you !!! :-) At least somebody is keeping the fight. As for
those who claim hat BCB does not produce enough revenue, who is to blame
with the bad marketing? If they couldn't do it with BCB do they expect
to do it with a dog as CBX?
On top of that according to some "marketing" ??!!?? guys at Borland
BCB started to do really well the last year. The reason - frustrated
Visual Studio (VB) users who need a reasonable native Win32 RAD tool and
feel abandoned by M$ . Borland missed and killed the once in the life
time opportunity. They can't get it back. That was a jackpot their
marketing guys lost.
Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
You've no idea how much I enjoyed your reply. I've been taking some
abuse lately about my replies on the newsgroups (most of it in emails)
and it's nice to hear that someone aggrees with me <g>

. Ed


>Kenneth de Camargo wrote in message
>news:407c646d$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>
>
>>"how much revenue is generated for Borland" is both a
>>common theme and I think a mistake. It is the wrong
>>question. BCB is a tool with which the customers create
>>products.
>>
>>The question to ask is what products will generate the
>>most revenue for Borland's CUSTOMERS. Valid answers
>>to that question will provide plenty of revenue for Borland.
>
>On behalf of the current BCB users' base, THANK YOU!!!



 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

You are putting the cart at the front of the horse. The reason BCB
did not generate enough revenue was a non existent marketing on Borland
side and only one way integration with Delphi. You can argue that CBX
has generated even less revenue as the product has not been sold for
long, and the revenue from the not done yet products is 0 so why should
we develop them then?
The process is - you come with innovative idea nobody else offers,
you develop, you marked, you sell, you make money, you collect feedback,
you come with innovative idea nobody else offers, you develop, you
marked, you sell, you make money ...
What Borland has done lately is create a product, see if somebody
will decide to buy within a month or two, who cares about adverti{*word*224}t
and marketing, who cares that the users are asking for some features and
bug fixes, ohhh?nobody buys enough of the product, well who cares about
fixing it and advertising it lets kill it do something else, ohhh... by
the way let's buy this CodeWrite thingy, huh we have it but it's not so
cool, lets kill it, huh our TeamSource is not so good, lets buy the
TogetherSoft, well we have them now what? ...
I think thatís enough, I can keep going but I think you got the
point. They are frustrated with the performance of their sales, and
instead of finding and fixing the problems, they are doing all kinds of
odd populist nonsense, trying to impress investors. Well the investors
donít eat grass, neither their users, and you can see that reflected
both in their stock price and the decline of their core users ( the
Delphi one included. ), they still have some Java crowd, but for how
long it's going to be with their approach?
In any case, as Investor I have shorten my Borland position, as
Developer, I am looking at alternatives ( So do the companies I am
working with, and the people I know around me ).
They say you get what you asked for, well you guess what Borland is
going to get.
With best regards,
Boian Mitov
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
Quote

Des O'Toole wrote:

>Issue: Would it be cost effective for Borland?
>---------------------------------------------
>Again I would have to argue, Yes. It naturally follows that if Delphi were
>to encompass BCB they would generate a lot more Delphi sales.


BCB is a fraction of the sales of Delphi. It would not garner a lot more
sales. If you increase the price for C++ features then you might even lower
sales as you drive away Delphi users who don't need C++ and don't want to pay
for features they have no need for (the vast majority). If you keep the price
the same for Delphi today you are further reducing the revenue generated by BCB
by all the people that bought both products who now get the C++ part for free.


>The only
>potential revenue they would miss out on is from those who currently need to
>buy both Delphi AND BCB.


Which is a large cross section.


>One could argue that even this would be negated by
>the fact that they could expect current BCB users to buy a completely new
>product (ie Delphi). The follow on benefit to Borland would be that as well
>as reducing development/marketing costs, Delphi would be a much stronger
>package, one that would cause many new developers to sit up and take notice.
>


Resource wise you save nothing. BCB and Delphi (7 and lower) already shared an
IDE so you are still talking about sharing an IDE so the IDE resources stay
roughly the same. Documentation - same resources. VCL - same resources.
Compiler - same resources. I have yet to find a single resource that you think
will be saved by this. There was plenty of overlap before and the ROI was poor
for BCB, the overlap and non overlap is still roughly the same with this idea as
it was before with less overall revenue generated.


>Issue: But It's not C++ enough
>-------------------------------
>There are many BCB users out there who have always hated the fact that the
>VCL was not written in C++ and have been very vocal in asking Borland to
>rewrite it. I would respectfully suggest that BCB was never REALLY the
>product for them. It was just a stop gap until something 'proper' came
>along. Hopefully CBX will turn out to be what they really want and need, it
>does seem as though Borland are really targetting the C++ purist with this -
>C++ framework, multiple compilers, multi platform etc. - I hope it all works
>out. To these people I would suggest that Delphi/BCB integration is in their
>interests too. Do they really want CBX developers spending precious time
>providing the much requested VCL integration?


It makes no sense at all for Borland to pull the Delphi resources (which give a
great ROI) and place them on BCB which gives them a low ROI. I can see why you
as a BCB user would love this, but it makes absolutely no business sense for
Borland.


>What are the benefits of integration?
>--------------------------------------
>Where to begin? Anyone who has used BCB over any period of time will know
>that we have been the poor relations to our Delphi cousins. BCB has always
>lagged behind Delphi development. 3rd party developers often omit support
>for BCB. Bug fixes have seemed to have a much lower priority than Delphi's.
>An ambidextrous Delphi should solve all of this. If, at the end of the day,
>rather than having a dedicated C++ compiler, I had an extremely RAD VCL/.NET
>tool that compiled the vast majority of my C++ code and was well supported,
>then I would be completely satisfied. If I needed a 100% compliant, multi
>platform, dedicated C++ development tool, then I would have the option of
>using CBX.


Not a single benefit for Delphi users nor for that matter Borland. It would be
an increase on resources that would be taken away from Delphi to give to C++
when once again the good ROI is on the Delphi side.

 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
"how much revenue is generated for Borland" is both a common theme and
I think a mistake. It is the wrong question. BCB is a tool with
which the customers create products.

The question to ask is what products will generate the most revenue
for Borland's CUSTOMERS. Valid answers to that question will provide
plenty of revenue for Borland.
Hear hear!
--
Vesty.
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

Hi buddy,
You are putting the cart at the front of the horse. The reason BCB
did not generate enough revenue was a non existent marketing on Borland
side and only one way integration with Delphi. You can argue that CBX
has generated even less revenue as the product has not been sold for
long, and the revenue from the not done yet products is 0 so why should
we develop them then?
The process is - you come with innovative idea nobody else offers,
you develop, you marked, you sell, you make money, you collect feedback,
you come with innovative idea nobody else offers, you develop, you
marked, you sell, you make money ...
What Borland has done lately is create a product, see if somebody
will decide to buy within a month or two, who cares about adverti{*word*224}t
and marketing, who cares that the users are asking for some features and
bug fixes, ohhh?nobody buys enough of the product, well who cares about
fixing it and advertising it lets kill it do something else, ohhh... by
the way let's buy this CodeWrite thingy, huh we have it but it's not so
cool, lets kill it, huh our TeamSource is not so good, lets buy the
TogetherSoft, well we have them now what? ...
I think thatís enough, I can keep going but I think you got the
point. They are frustrated with the performance of their sales, and
instead of finding and fixing the problems, they are doing all kinds of
odd populist nonsense, trying to impress investors. Well the investors
donít eat grass, neither their users, and you can see that reflected
both in their stock price and the decline of their core users ( the
Delphi one included. ), they still have some Java crowd, but for how
long it's going to be with their approach?
In any case, as Investor I have shorten my Borland position, as
Developer, I am looking at alternatives ( So do the companies I am
working with, and the people I know around me ).
They say you get what you asked for, well you guess what Borland is
going to get.
With best regards,
Boian Mitov
www.mitov.com
www.openwire.org
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
Quote

BCB is a fraction of the sales of Delphi. It would not garner a lot more
sales. If you increase the price for C++ features then you might even lower
sales as you drive away Delphi users who don't need C++ and don't want to pay
for features they have no need for (the vast majority). If you keep the price
the same for Delphi today you are further reducing the revenue generated by BCB
by all the people that bought both products who now get the C++ part for free.
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 06:29:07 -0700, Boian Mitov wrote:
Quote
Hi buddy,
How many times are you planning on posting this?
--
good luck,
liz
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

"Liz Albin" wrote:
Quote
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 06:29:07 -0700, Boian Mitov wrote:

>Hi buddy,

How many times are you planning on posting this?
--
good luck,
liz
he replied to Jeff Overcash.
or is Jeff ... ah, I didn't know that either.
Peter
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

I canceled the other postings because of some problems with them. It
is posted only once. Refresh your newsgoup browser, and it will be cleaned.
With best regards,
Boian
Liz Albin wrote:
Quote
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 06:29:07 -0700, Boian Mitov wrote:


>Hi buddy,


How many times are you planning on posting this?
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

Sorry for the trouble. I guess you have me on record now ;-)
Liz Albin wrote:
Quote

No it won't I've already downloaded the posts. :)

 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:39:42 -0700, Boian Mitov wrote:
Quote
I canceled the other postings because of some problems with them. It
is posted only once. Refresh your newsgoup browser, and it will be cleaned.
With best regards,
Boian
No it won't I've already downloaded the posts. :)
--
good luck,
liz
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:47:25 -0700, Boian Mitov wrote:
Quote
Sorry for the trouble. I guess you have me on record now ;-)
Three times. I'll cherish the experience. :)
--
good luck,
liz
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

Of course it doesn't, I mean it's barely very basic editor, with
almost nothing else. How it can force me one way or another ;-) . BCB at
least had some code navigation capabilities, and they worked most of the
time. CBX is a toy, and even VC++ 6.0 has a better editor, well except
the DIFF part, but so what, there are enough tools out there that do the
diff and integrate well into the IDE's. As an IDE the CBX is a joke. I
can use notepad and be as productive as with CBX. Ohhh... it will not
show me the includes... well, I guess CBX has at least something. I wish
it had a reasonable File Open dialog. I can't even filer the files
there. Ohhh... I forgot Java can't easily go native. I huh... I am proud
I have a Java IDE, now how do I make it to do the most basic everyday
things like opening a file I want to edit? Ohhh... it can't do that,
well but I can run it on other platforms then? Well, huh, huh, i mean
yeah, but the compilers are Win32...!!! Ohhh... it's, hmmm it's a non
cross platform Java IDE ! Cool exactly the stuff I was looking for,
great lucky me I have it ;-) It's the tool I have dreamed about ;-)
Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work you are doing, and
it is great that you are trying to save some face for the Borlanders,
but are you sure you are helping them? If they don't feel the pain now,
wouldn't it hurt more later?
With best regards,
Boian Mitov
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
the IDE as if it was a Delphi project. The CBX IDE does not
force you to work your C++ project as if it were Java.
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

Well we just aren't so genius after all I guess. I am sure those
visionaries at Borland, see a significant advantage in having a Windows
only Java IDE. We are just too stupid and can't figure out how genius it
is ;-)
Poor us ;-)
Adam Versteegen wrote:
Quote

Thats the bit i've had most trouble understanding...
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

Boian Mitov wrote:
Quote
well but I can run it on other platforms then? Well, huh, huh, i mean
yeah, but the compilers are Win32...!!!
Thats the bit i've had most trouble understanding...
Borlands compiler is windows only right? Or are they planning on making it
cross platform? I realise you can use other compilers in BCBX, but it makes
it less useful if you can't use a single compiler cross platform.
--
Vesty.
 

Re:Re: Delphi/BCB Integration (Part 2)

Shouldn't they first learn how to write good Java compilers in Java <g>?
Boian
Yahia El-Qasem wrote:
Quote
well... perhaps the compiler will become cross-platform some time in the
future ( V 6 or 7 ) if they find a way to write a good C++ compiler in Java
<g>

Yahia