Board index » cppbuilder » Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?


2006-05-14 04:00:21 AM
cppbuilder78
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:00:24 -0700, David Erbas-White
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
My major concern is that it's the "rot" that is determining who/what
will be purchasing DevCo, which means there's a good possibility of the
"rot at the top" simply being REPLACED, not REMOVED.
I don't think that's likely. The DevCo people are involved in the
decision making, and the Board has promised that the future of DevCo
will play a large part in deciding who they sell it off to. Since it's
in the best interest of the Board to see DevCo succeed I think they'll
make sure they find the right buyer.
Quote
Let's face it -- if Borland thought they could make a go of the IDE
business, they wouldn't be getting rid of it -- so they'll be just as
I don't think that's the case. The Borland culture is no longer
aligned with selling to the developer market, and IMO hasn't been
since before the Imprise fiasco. Their IDE business no longer fits
into their business model and they are making a wise choice to cut it
loose before they completely run it into the ground.
Quote
so they'll be just as
likely to sell it to an entity who views it as a cash-cow to be milked
(probably more likely, since that is what they view it as) than as
something with potential for the new buyer.
I think anyone with the financial wherewithal to buy the IDE business
would be smart enough to see that DevCo can go in one of two
directions, up or down, and the only way to make it go up is to return
to the good old days when Borland was the technical leader in
development tools.
If the Borland IDEs were technically state-of-the-art today, perhaps
some giant company would buy DevCo for its intellectual property,
{*word*16}ize the current products and use the technology to boost its
own products. Since the IDEs aren't at that level I don't think this
will happen.
Or so I hope.
 
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

Leroy Casterline < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>>Let's face it -- if Borland thought they could make a go of the IDE
>>business, they wouldn't be getting rid of it -- so they'll be just as
>>likely to sell it to an entity who views it as a cash-cow to be milked
>>(probably more likely, since that is what they view it as) than as
>>something with potential for the new buyer.
>
>Exactly -- very well said. I do not see how Borland can demand top
>dollar for something they are jettisoning because of low
>profitability.

If the profitability were low it wouldn't be much of a cash cow. I
have the impression from reading the DevCo blogs that Borland had been
siphoning off much of the profits from the IDE line and investing them
into other products. DevCo won't have that drain and will be able to
invest their profits back into their products.
Ah, so that's why Borland sells it -- they want to
stop that incomming cash flow?
Mhmm. Were you even trying to be serious?
Quote
[...]
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

"Leroy Casterline" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
The Borland culture is no longer
aligned with selling to the developer market, and IMO hasn't been
since before the Imprise fiasco. Their IDE business no longer fits
into their business model and they are making a wise choice to cut it
loose before they completely run it into the ground.
So, first they'll cut loose, and then they'll run it into the ground. This is
all very worrying ... ;-)
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

tinyabs wrote:
Quote
If only there's code completion for enumeration types and static :: methods
too.

I think some of the things for the code completion in the case of ::
work (when you press ctl-space).
Class-defined enums, unfortunately, are not supported. I put a QC entry
for this a while ago.
.a
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

On Mon, 15 May 2006 09:37:44 +0100, "Mark Jacobs"
Quote

So, first they'll cut loose, and then they'll run it into the ground. This is
all very worrying ... ;-)
If they cut it loose I hope they won't be able to run it into the
ground :-).
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

On Mon, 15 May 2006 09:53:37 +0200, "Hendrik Schober"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Ah, so that's why Borland sells it -- they want to
stop that incomming cash flow?
Mhmm. Were you even trying to be serious?
Yes, I was. The IDE apparently hasn't fit into their business model
for years now, and they've let that part of their business decline. I
think they want to get rid of it before they completely kill it, while
it's still worth something.
As for the IDE business having a positive cash flow, I'm pretty sure I
read that in Allen Bauer's blog (and I'd point you to the article if
the blog site weren't down at the moment!). I'll believe what Allen,
JK, DavidI and the other DevCo folks say. They've earned my trust over
the last year or two.
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

Leroy Casterline < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
On Mon, 15 May 2006 09:53:37 +0200, "Hendrik Schober"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Ah, so that's why Borland sells it -- they want to
>stop that incomming cash flow?
>Mhmm. Were you even trying to be serious?

Yes, I was. The IDE apparently hasn't fit into their business model
for years now, and they've let that part of their business decline. I
think they want to get rid of it before they completely kill it, while
it's still worth something.
Lemme recap that, OK?
Selling IDEs made a lot of profit which Borland invested
into other products. And this is why Borland now sells
their IDE business. This was what you were saying, right?
Sorry, but you've lost me here.
I'm not much of a management person (to say the least),
so this might be why, but I can't see anything sensible
in that statement. Not at all.
Quote
[...]
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

Hendrik Schober wrote:
Quote
Leroy Casterline < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>On Mon, 15 May 2006 09:53:37 +0200, "Hendrik Schober"
>< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
>
>
>>Ah, so that's why Borland sells it -- they want to
>>stop that incomming cash flow?
>>Mhmm. Were you even trying to be serious?
>
>Yes, I was. The IDE apparently hasn't fit into their business model
>for years now, and they've let that part of their business decline. I
>think they want to get rid of it before they completely kill it, while
>it's still worth something.


Lemme recap that, OK?
Selling IDEs made a lot of profit which Borland invested
into other products. And this is why Borland now sells
their IDE business. This was what you were saying, right?
Sorry, but you've lost me here.

I'm not much of a management person (to say the least),
so this might be why, but I can't see anything sensible
in that statement. Not at all.


If Borland believes that the IDE would be a profitable business, they
wouldn't sell it. They would create a subsidiary to manage it and grow
it.
The reason they are selling it is because they don't believe this. They
haven't found a buyer because all the potential buyers know this.
Quote
>[...]


Schobi

 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

Hendrik Schober wrote:
Quote
I'm not much of a management person (to say the least),
so this might be why, but I can't see anything sensible
in that statement. Not at all.
Why not? Think of the IDE business as being like a firelighter. Perhaps
(and this is speculation) Borland feel that the blaze is roaring away
just fine now. They might be concerned that the lighter could get lost
down the back of the sofa and that they can sell it to someone else to
use to start another fire.
Okay so it's a questionable analogy but I offer it up as my take on
this :)
--
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
[Bicester, Uk]
info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Selling IDEs made a lot of profit which Borland invested
into other products. And this is why Borland now sells
their IDE business. This was what you were saying, right?
Sorry, but you've lost me here.

I'm not much of a management person (to say the least),
so this might be why, but I can't see anything sensible
in that statement. Not at all.
Perfectly standard capitalism. Borland want to make money from <whatever
it is they do apart from IDEs>. To do this, they feel they need to
invest money into that. Therefore, they look around for ways to raise
that money.
They could go to investors and raise money that way. Or they could bank
the money coming in from the IDE arm, but that'd take years to raise the
money they want. Or they can sell the IDE arm now, and get that money in
one chunk that they can use now.
If we make the assumption that they want to concentrate on <wiitdafi>,
then selling the IDE arm has two advantages - they get a nice chunk of
money for it, and they can concentrate their management skills on what
they consider now to be their core business.
(The assumption is that they want a large chunk of money fairly soon.)
Alan Bellingham
--
ACCU Conference 2007 - venue to be determined.
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

"Andrue Cope [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Why not? Think of the IDE business as being like a firelighter. Perhaps
(and this is speculation) Borland feel that the blaze is roaring away
just fine now. They might be concerned that the lighter could get lost
down the back of the sofa and that they can sell it to someone else to
use to start another fire.
One word - bull! ;-)
IDE's tend to produce a flurry of sales, followed by a flurry of support and
technical queries. The money floods in initially, and, unless invested wisely,
will be in very short supply when the support period kicks in - much fewer new
sales, much more tech requests. It strikes me that Borland, prior to Inprise,
were more technically-orientated, very proud of their IDE products, and any
money they amassed from BCB/Delphi was put into a savings account, rather than
re-invested in dodgy business ventures. Then came the Inprise and subsequent
period, where new, untested business ideas were launched on an unsuspecting
technical customer base. Most of these ideas were malformed, inappropriate,
and under-invested in. The community pounced on the reduction in technical
quality that was being foisted upon them. That's Borland now. Any nay-sayers,
please go away and look at reality. This is not a flame or trolling; it is a
statement of pure fact. The only way Borland can do anything about this
situation now, is to get their C++ personality working properly in a solid,
bug-free Delphi IDE. They haven't done that yet, IMO.
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

Andrue Cope [TeamB] < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Hendrik Schober wrote:

>I'm not much of a management person (to say the least),
>so this might be why, but I can't see anything sensible
>in that statement. Not at all.

Why not? Think of the IDE business as being like a firelighter. Perhaps
(and this is speculation) Borland feel that the blaze is roaring away
just fine now. [...]
Do you sell your lighters everytime you used them?
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

Alan Bellingham < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Selling IDEs made a lot of profit which Borland invested
>into other products. And this is why Borland now sells
>their IDE business. This was what you were saying, right?
>Sorry, but you've lost me here.
>
>I'm not much of a management person (to say the least),
>so this might be why, but I can't see anything sensible
>in that statement. Not at all.

Perfectly standard capitalism. Borland want to make money from <whatever
it is they do apart from IDEs>. To do this, they feel they need to
invest money into that. Therefore, they look around for ways to raise
that money.
And what they came up with is selling their cash
cow? Sorry, but this still seems stupid. Probably
even more so.
Quote
[...]
Alan Bellingham
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

Hendrik Schober wrote:
Quote

And what they came up with is selling their cash
cow? Sorry, but this still seems stupid. Probably
even more so.
I think they realized that this will be cash cow not much longer as they
are not (for whatever reasons) able to invest in it adequate resources.
So it's better to sell it and get a chunk of change to invest in what
they think the long term future will be.
.a
 

Re:Re: So now what's it all about that quality release?

Alex Bakaev [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
I think they realized that this will be cash cow not much longer as
they are not (for whatever reasons) able to invest in it adequate
resources. So it's better to sell it and get a chunk of change to
invest in what they think the long term future will be.
By implication, BDS2006 will never be sufficiently invested in, unless DevCo
(who currently *do not exist!*) are willing to stump up, and go into the red
for a bit. Great investment opportunity - spend money rescuing this very
complex IDE from technical disaster, and then hope and pray that it sells. It
sounds like the IDE's card has been marked. Time's up, folks!
--
?
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk