Board index » cppbuilder » Revealing Future Plans

Revealing Future Plans


2004-06-23 02:03:07 AM
cppbuilder66
No, I'm not complaining about the lack of the open letter. I just don't
understand Borland. Here's why.
I went to a one-day M$ seminar in Boston last week. It was called Route 64.
Maybe some of you have heard of it or attended one. They are being held
world wide. They deal with 64 bit computing. I wanted to go to the one in
Australia but ...
They had reps from HP, Intel and AMD present. The first session was their
64 bit roadmap. They covered which products could do what now, what was in
beta and when expected delivery dates of upcoming products would be.
Interesting, though, they're now using timeframes like 1h05 (1st half of
'05) rather than quarters.
So, what I don't understand, is why Borland can't do something similar. I
guess the only reason I can think of is that they don't have any plans, at
least for BCB. If M$ can reveal their plans through 2007 (Longhorn), why
can't Borland reveal theirs for the next twelve months?
I'm getting very frustrated.
- Arnie
 
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

"Arnie Mauer" wrote :
Quote
So, what I don't understand, is why Borland can't do something similar. I
guess the only reason I can think of is that they don't have any plans, at
least for BCB. If M$ can reveal their plans through 2007 (Longhorn), why
can't Borland reveal theirs for the next twelve months?
They don't know what they will be able to do?
They can't agree internally?
/sten
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

"Arnie Mauer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote
Quote
If M$ can reveal their plans through 2007 (Longhorn), why
can't Borland reveal theirs for the next twelve months?
Because Borland are suffering from corporate catatonia.
From: www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/catatonic
Definition: Describes a condition of suspended animation in which
something is so wedged or hung that it makes no response. If you are typing
on a terminal and suddenly the computer doesn't even echo the letters back
to the screen as you type, let alone do what you're asking it to do, then
the computer is suffering from catatonia (possibly because it has crashed).
Dave
 

{smallsort}

Re:Revealing Future Plans

I think its simply that MS has the power to be able to dictate the
industry's future, and borland is in the position of having to
anticipate not only the future, but also having to anticipate in which
niche of that future they might be able to succeed. Yes, they are that
irrelevant.
Arnie Mauer wrote:
Quote
No, I'm not complaining about the lack of the open letter. I just don't
understand Borland. Here's why.

I went to a one-day M$ seminar in Boston last week. It was called Route 64.
Maybe some of you have heard of it or attended one. They are being held
world wide. They deal with 64 bit computing. I wanted to go to the one in
Australia but ...

They had reps from HP, Intel and AMD present. The first session was their
64 bit roadmap. They covered which products could do what now, what was in
beta and when expected delivery dates of upcoming products would be.
Interesting, though, they're now using timeframes like 1h05 (1st half of
'05) rather than quarters.

So, what I don't understand, is why Borland can't do something similar. I
guess the only reason I can think of is that they don't have any plans, at
least for BCB. If M$ can reveal their plans through 2007 (Longhorn), why
can't Borland reveal theirs for the next twelve months?

I'm getting very frustrated.

- Arnie


 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

"Arnie Mauer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
So, what I don't understand, is why Borland can't do something similar. I
guess the only reason I can think of is that...
I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and I think I can understand
Borland's position on this afterall. In war the strategy you pursue is
highly dependent on the size and might of your forces. If you are big enough
you can tell your enemy exactly what you are planning to do, much like the
U.S. did before invading Iraq. But if you are not so big, or in fact if you
are rather small, you must use the element of surprise to a far deeper
extent, even to the point of engaging in stealth, in order to acheive any
significant tactical advantage.
Whether we like it or not, market competitiveness is a type of war. Also,
don't take this the wrong way, but lack of imagination (as in "the only
reason I can think of...") is never a good basis for an opinion.
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

"Captain Jake" wrote:
Quote
I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and I think I can understand
Borland's position on this afterall. In war the strategy you pursue is
highly dependent on the size and might of your forces. If you are big
enough
you can tell your enemy exactly what you are planning to do, much like the
U.S. did before invading Iraq. But if you are not so big, or in fact if
you
are rather small, you must use the element of surprise to a far deeper
extent, even to the point of engaging in stealth, in order to acheive any
significant tactical advantage.
Yeah, and we, the customers, are the enemy.
Quote
Whether we like it or not, market competitiveness is a type of war. Also,
don't take this the wrong way, but lack of imagination (as in "the only
reason I can think of...") is never a good basis for an opinion.
Of course it is not war. Not even a chess game. It is about to satisfy your
customers that much they are willing to give you their money. That's all.
Peter
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

On 22-Jun-04, Peter Agricola said:
Quote
Yeah, and we, the customers, are the enemy.
Good grief, get a grip.
Quote
>Whether we like it or not, market competitiveness is a type of war.
>Also, don't take this the wrong way, but lack of imagination (as in
>"the only reason I can think of...") is never a good basis for an
>opinion.

Of course it is not war. Not even a chess game. It is about to
satisfy your customers that much they are willing to give you their
money. That's all.
Business is not war, per se, but the use of tactics and strategy is as
important in business as in war. The analogy is an excellent one.
--
Bill
--------
"I cannot under-take to lay my finger on that article in the
Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the
object of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James
Madison
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

On 22-Jun-04, Captain Jake said:
Quote
I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and I think I can
understand Borland's position on this afterall. In war the strategy
you pursue is highly dependent on the size and might of your forces.
If you are big enough you can tell your enemy exactly what you are
planning to do, much like the U.S. did before invading Iraq. But if
you are not so big, or in fact if you are rather small, you must use
the element of surprise to a far deeper extent, even to the point of
engaging in stealth, in order to acheive any significant tactical
advantage.
Moreover, if you look at history, Borland has accumulated numerous
patents, some of which have brought revenue. Some of the roadmap that
folks here find so desirable might well tip their hand with respect to
patentable technologies.
Quote
Whether we like it or not, market competitiveness is a type of war.
Also, don't take this the wrong way, but lack of imagination (as in
"the only reason I can think of...") is never a good basis for an
opinion.
And Sun-Tzu is still an excellent guide. Imagination is necessary to
the creation of tactics and strategy, too.
--
Bill
--------
"I cannot under-take to lay my finger on that article in the
Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the
object of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James
Madison
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

"William Meyer" "William Meyer" wrote:
Quote
Business is not war, per se, but the use of tactics and strategy is as
important in business as in war. The analogy is an excellent one.
Only when you are an overpaid business consultant.
Peter
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

On 22-Jun-04, Peter Agricola said:
Quote
Only when you are an overpaid business consultant.
Or a manager responsible for product planning.
--
Bill
--------
"I cannot under-take to lay my finger on that article in the
Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the
object of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James
Madison
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

At this point everything is possible and imaginable!
'may be' Borland is negotiating to acquire a major player in the
cross-platform C++ framework field to speed up CBX development!
And as the negotiations are on-going they cannot say anything since the
future scenarios are quite different if the acquisition is successfully
concluded or not.
'may be not'!
Saulo
"William Meyer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escreveu na mensagem
Quote
Moreover, if you look at history, Borland has accumulated numerous
patents, some of which have brought revenue. Some of the roadmap that
folks here find so desirable might well tip their hand with respect to
patentable technologies.
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

"Arnie Mauer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
least for BCB. If M$ can reveal their plans through 2007 (Longhorn), why
can't Borland reveal theirs for the next twelve months?
Because they are so secret that even the managers at Borland dont know what they are.
And MS might steal Borland's plans. :-)
Quote
I'm getting very frustrated.
You lack faith.
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

William Meyer < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
<40d89d61$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
Quote
Or a manager responsible for product planning.
Or one guy writing a newsreader.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.3.129
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

Captain Jake wrote:
Quote
U.S. did before invading Iraq. But if you are not so big, or in fact if you
are rather small, you must use the element of surprise to a far deeper
extent, even to the point of engaging in stealth, in order to acheive any
significant tactical advantage.

Just out of curiousity, any examples that you can think of in
Borlands recent past?
regards,
jeff
 

Re:Revealing Future Plans

Jeff Weir wrote:
Quote
Captain Jake wrote:

>U.S. did before invading Iraq. But if you are not so big, or in fact
>if you
>are rather small, you must use the element of surprise to a far deeper
>extent, even to the point of engaging in stealth, in order to acheive any
>significant tactical advantage.
>

Just out of curiousity, any examples that you can think of in Borlands
recent past?

regards,

jeff
Well, just look at CBX! By keeping it secret, even from all of their
C++ users, they were able to steal a march on Microsoft. By dropping
BCB and leaving it needing lots of bugs fixed, they managed to FORCE all
of their loyal users to jump on the CBX bandwagon!!! Since the release
of CBX, it has taken the programming world by storm!!!
What's that?!?
It didn't?!?
Oh...
Nevermind...
David "Litella" Erbas-White