Board index » kylix » Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?


2005-08-18 03:04:14 PM
kylix0
On 2005-08-17, siegfriedn <sniedinger@yahoodotcodotuk>wrote:
Quote
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
...
>But it is mostly no longer Borland's technology, it is the OSS.
>
Huh? If a system is OSS does not mean you relinquesh all rights. You
still own the software. The important thing is the license agreement.
All OSS in general has a license agreement.
There is some problem though. The software would get tainted by code from
others. For minor patches (bugfixes) this is not a real problem, but for
significant code contributions code it is.
However this is not surmountable, even GNU does this. (requires major
contributors to sign a license to GNU, and eula like clauses like "when you
submit code to... you agree to ...). I'm sure Borland lawyers could work
out a decent formulation. (or they could just call GNU, who are always happy
to help with license issues)
Such system probably already existed for freeclx. And the administration and
paper work latency probably put a brake on the handling of fixes.
Quote
See also Marco's reply to your earlier post regarding the problems with
GPL 'compile-into' source libraries (like FreeCLX) which is bad
application of the GPL. Also a good example where the GPL could be
considered a 'cancer'
Another example why the Kylix Open Edition principle is flawed.
Person A makes a library with Kylix Open edition, and can only GPL it.
Person B has a Kylix license, but can't use persons B library in a
commercial product (GNU advocatism over "support" aside).
A wants to give it to B, and B wants to use it, and Borland was payed at
least once. Still there is no option for B to use A's library.
IOW Open Edition misses an option to contribute sources made to transfer
rights to something the Kylix professional community can benefit from. I
think e.g. an exception to allow contributions under MPL to Jedi (or any
other Borland related or controlled archive project) would have been a
solution.
Don't misunderstand me. This all is not entirely a Borland critique. It took
guts from Borland to make the step at that point it time. It is just a pity
that they never took the next step from the first symbolic steps.
Even some minor adjustments to resolve known problem cases like above, and
providing the core libs under a more free license would have helped, and
helped boost Kylix community at hardly a cost.
Quote
IMO only end user applications, operating systems, desktop environments
and other core end user and server utilities should be GPL. Never for
Compiler linked libraries!
_should_ is quite strong (/me is actually BSDer btw). Could sure.
Libraries should only be GPLed if there is a suitable alternate way to deal
with it. IOW teaser. Borland did that, but it was stupid if it expected much
of it. (and personally I doubt it did, it was just PR IMHO)
Quote
>But you haven't shown that they can make a profit. They can't sell their plugin
>the revenue stream and doesn't greatly lower expenses.
>

What is better, sell a million of copies at $10 or 1000 copies at $1000?
For a dev tool I would say a million copies at $10 is by far the better
option. - hyphothetical example of course.
The trouble is that lower prices mean less than proportional lower income. The
cut the retail channel takes, and your own costs are not price-flexible.
Quote
>>Are you saying that Borland does not care about products that don't
>>bring in the millions?
>Yes.
That stinks. I hope it's an official policy of Borland.
I can understand it in general. However Kylix is IMHO not an isolated
product. It is an alternate edition of the Delphi product, and maybe even
Delphi.NET can be added to that stable (personally I've doubts about that).
 
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

Borland is a company that produce useful tools for software industry.
I think that it has a lot of shareholders and workers.
Borland must make money for shareholders and workers...
Do you remember TurboPascal?
Or TurboVision?
Or IntraBuilder?
Or DBase IV (or visual DBase)?
As you know, these are in the attic of Borland.
Because these products are reached their expire dates.
But I dont think that Kylix reach its expire date.
Linux already is one of the mainsteams of software industry.
Cross platform is another mainstream, too.
I heard Kylix1; I checked Kylix2 and I bought Kylix3.
Because, Linux has became an other alternative OS and Kylix3 has enough
functionality.
Kylix and Delphi same for me...
I cant understand that if Delphi is a outstanding, preferable, profitable
tool in the market, why Kylix not?
If Borland give us same Delphi functionality for Kylix after one year later
from relase of Delphi, I will upgrade my Kylix.
Same functionality means compiler features, IDE, components, libraries and
other possibilities (Web Services, etc.).
This is my opinion...
Hur Akdulger
"siegfriedn" <sniedinger@yahoodotcodotuk>wrote in message
Quote
This is my reply post from the delphi non technical group, but have not
had a reply from JK there, so I am posting it here where it is more
appropriate..

John Kaster (Borland) wrote:

>
>We wanted to make money from Kylix. You are welcome to suggest a
>"different business model" that will make money from Kylix.
>

Thank you for the invitation :)

(...)
(...)
(...)
Quote
How Borland makes money..
-------------------------

- Sell component packs for example the additional components which are in
the Enterprise edition only.

- Sell IDE plugins for example the SDO/ALM intergration stuff, ECO etc..

- Sell an official shrink rapped 'stable' version of Kylix to corporate
customers with all the Borland goodness and support prepackaged. (Like Sun
with Open Office and StarOffice)


Hope you find it useful :)

siegs
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

Quote

Kylix and Delphi same for me...
I cant understand that if Delphi is a outstanding, preferable, profitable
tool in the market, why Kylix not?


Unfortunately, Delphi's future is unclear too:
www.codefez.com/Home/tabid/36/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/139/ToDelphiorNottoDelphi.aspx
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

theo wrote:
Quote
Unfortunately, Delphi's future is unclear too:
www.codefez.com/Home/tabid/36/articleType/ArticleView/articleId
/139/ToDelphiorNottoDelphi.aspx
Fortunately, that's just an opinion piece from Lino.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

"Simon Kissel" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Jeff,
Quote
This is one thing I completely fail to understand. Why should you drop
something
because you can make more money on something else? Why not do BOTH?
It's called Internal Rate of Return (IRR). A corporation establishes a
minimum return on investment (ROI) and anything that fails to meet the
criteria is cut in order to invest the limited capitol in other avenues that
are more likely to meet the IRR.
Quote
Looking at Kylix, a single full-time developer would be enough of an
investment
for Borland to keep Kylix alive and the revenue stream coming. As small as
the
current Kylix customer base might be, they'd still invest more than enough
money
to pay for that developer.
That's speculation without analysis. I'm sure the accounting types at
Borland have better data wrt to that type of solution.
Quote
>Name a single public company that continues with a product that loses
>money and
>has a declining revenue stream.
Kylix having a declining revenue stream is enterily Borlands fault. The
market has
improved a lot since Kylix was released. Usage of Linux servers has grown
rapidly
during the last years, and Linux on the Desktop these days also is much
more common
than it was a few years ago.
I know one thing for sure: There currently are>500 developers using
CrossKylix
alone, and there a lots of Fortune500 companies in that list. The number of
"plain"
Kylix users will be much higher than that.
First, your statement does not address the challenge. Second, Borland will
have stats on how often Kylix is downloaded and how many requests it
receives for pricing/quotes. While you are right that the environment
changes, no here has provided evidence suggesting that it will offer the
company a sufficient ROI (when compared to more proven tracks) to revive
Kylix development.
Quote
Actually there is lots of evidence for this. Go ask the fellows at AToZed,
as an
example. There are a lot of enterprises out there who depend on the
ability to
deploy to Linux. And naturally, I personally quite a few customers that
will
say Good-bye to Borland as soon as it is clear that they won't offer a
future
path for Kylix. This includes myself. And oh well, of course Borland also
has already lost quite a few customers to the FreePascal and Lazarus
camps.
Oh well, and then there is Borland Brazil, who stated that they have tons
of Kylix customers and get asked about a Kylix 4 all the time...
If it's so obvious, I suggest that the proponents get together and submit a
business plan to Borland. If the evidence is that compelling then the
company would be foolish not to look at it. To make a solid argument, one
will have to replace such terms as "all the time", "much higher" and "tons"
with actual numbers that are backed up with statistical and/or other
evidence.
Having said all that, I am a big fan of the Kylix/Delphi combination. It is
a drool-inspiring concept to use the same language and IDE for
cross-platform development.
Rob
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

"siegfriedn" <sniedinger@yahoodotcodotuk>wrote in message
Quote
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
...
>>Are you saying that Borland does not care about products that don't
>>bring in the millions?
>
>
>Yes.
>

That stinks. I hope it's an official policy of Borland.
That's the nature of business. Not only does their have to be a return on
investment, there is a minimum allowable return. Even profitable ventures
can be s{*word*99}ped for not making a high enough profit.
Rob
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

"Marco van de Voort" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
On 2005-08-17, siegfriedn <sniedinger@yahoodotcodotuk>wrote:
>Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
>...
There is some problem though. The software would get tainted by code from
others. For minor patches (bugfixes) this is not a real problem, but for
significant code contributions code it is.

However this is not surmountable, even GNU does this. (requires major
contributors to sign a license to GNU, and eula like clauses like "when
you
submit code to... you agree to ...). I'm sure Borland lawyers could work
out a decent formulation.
The pivotal question remains, "what is their incentive to do so?".
It would certainly benefit we developers, but the original challenge has yet
to be answered. What does Borland have to gain?
Rob
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

Quote
>You'd still have to show how Borland will make money with this. I see
>your
>advantage, you get a free tool. Borland, being a publicly traded
>company, has a
>legal responsibility to do what is best for the shareholders and that is
>to make
>money.

While true, this doesn't have to be proved up front. Risk investments in
new
markets are not limited by this. (as Microsoft shows _clearly_ with XBOX)
You do have to make a case up front (as stated) to "show how Borland will
make money with this". There are market studies done and speculation based
on analysis. The business case is in fact "proved up front" even if it ends
up being wrong in the end.
Quote
>Borland deals with products that need to make 10's of millions in revenue
>and millions in profit, you are proposing that they also deal with
>something that at best might make high six figures and might show a
>profitability of low six figures. That is not a product Borland is
>interested in.

There _is_ something as an strategic investment btw. Not all lines need
to make money, as long as they contribute to the overall revenue.
Again, show how the strategic investment benefits Borland's long-term
profitability. Write up a business plan and submit it to them. By going
through such an exercise, I think people will realize what's involved with
these decisions. It might be based on bad judgement, it might be based on a
desire to be mean, but more than likely it is based on some analysis of
numbers and emerging trends.
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

"Marco van de Voort" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
On 2005-08-16, Jeff Overcash (TeamB) < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
>
>
>Marco van de Voort wrote:
>>
>
>>I don't know how much Borland is gaining or loosing on Kylix either.
>>While
>>Kylix might not have been the blast that was expected, it could still be
>>a moneymaker. IIRC a few years ago, even BP7 was one.
>
>Kylix was losing money big time. It has been stated that Kylix did not
>make
>money.

Possible. But that could have been a result of the half hearted approach.
And
what do you count as Kylix investments?

Compare:

Did D8 (the initial for pay .NET project) btw make money overall, if you
include everything .NET related, so including the development of the D7
cmdline compiler? I doubt it. Otherwise there shouldn't have been a .NET
in
D2005 according to your reasoning, since .NET would be moving money.
However it is logical even if D8 was not highly profitable that D2005
would
have .NET support. Why? Strategic.
Compare:
A single release of D8 to compare to three releases of Kylix? Apples to
oranges?
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

Quote
Kylix and Delphi same for me...
I cant understand that if Delphi is a outstanding, preferable, profitable
tool in the market, why Kylix not?
Windows and Linux are more than just different O/S's, they are different
cultures. Linux-folk are used to finding and building tools and have a lot
of access to different tools as well. WIndows development was
revolutionized with VB and Delphi whereas it is already fairly well
established for the Linux types. Also, Linux programmers are typically
looking for C/C++ solutions because that's what they're already using.
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

"Dave Nottage [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
theo wrote:

>Unfortunately, Delphi's future is unclear too:
>www.codefez.com/Home/tabid/36/articleType/ArticleView/articleId
>/139/ToDelphiorNottoDelphi.aspx

Fortunately, that's just an opinion piece from Lino.
Unfortunately only part of it was opinion. The numbers indicated by the
Borland Earnings conference call probably weren't opinion.
Furthermore, his solution is doomed. Much like the "spin-off Kylix to a
community" solution that's being advocated in this thread, I don't see how
the "Spin-off Delphi to it's Own Company" idea provides any incentive for
Borland. In the scenario outlined, why would Borland get rid of a
money-maker that is currently providing capitol for new development?
Another example of developers and supporters expressing their preference
without offering a palatable solution for those in charge to follow that
path.
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

On 2005-08-19, Robby Tanner < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>
>Did D8 (the initial for pay .NET project) btw make money overall, if you
>include everything .NET related, so including the development of the D7
>cmdline compiler? I doubt it. Otherwise there shouldn't have been a .NET
>in
>D2005 according to your reasoning, since .NET would be moving money.
>However it is logical even if D8 was not highly profitable that D2005
>would
>have .NET support. Why? Strategic.

Compare:

A single release of D8 to compare to three releases of Kylix? Apples to
oranges?
Apples and oranges, certainly, since .NET is probably _WAY_ more expensive
than the three. Reworking the entire codegenerator alone. Brr.
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

On 2005-08-19, Robby Tanner < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
There is some problem though. The software would get tainted by code from
>others. For minor patches (bugfixes) this is not a real problem, but for
>significant code contributions code it is.
>
>However this is not surmountable, even GNU does this. (requires major
>contributors to sign a license to GNU, and eula like clauses like "when
>you
>submit code to... you agree to ...). I'm sure Borland lawyers could work
>out a decent formulation.

The pivotal question remains, "what is their incentive to do so?".

It would certainly benefit we developers, but the original challenge has yet
to be answered. What does Borland have to gain?
It will have to do something to offset the waning interest in Delphi. And I
think that the constant narrowing (or better, keeping narrow) of the Delphi
platform is one of the reasons:
- Kylix is dead.
- Nobody even heard of a native 64-bit compiler coming.
- No native PDA compilers
- No .NET PDA yet.
- No Mac.
- No .NET 64-bit (since requires .NET 2, admitted this goes for MS too,
but MS has kits available for free in the field to mere mortals)
So what is your prefered course? Continue narrowing in on .NET till
Microsofts natural advantages as original implementor, and its sheer size kill
Borland?
If that is the plan, better drop out these tools all together, and start
moving to something more specialistic where you don't confront a MS product
head on.
Otherwise, they will need to _make_ {*word*76}y new products. And take risks.
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

Robby Tanner wrote:
Quote


That's the nature of business. Not only does their have to be a return on
investment, there is a minimum allowable return. Even profitable ventures
can be s{*word*99}ped for not making a high enough profit.

Hi Rob,
That makes things very complex.. should I wait until a product is
achieving the IRR for a company? If everyone thinks like that they won't
sell anything :( Was it a mistake to trust Borland with Kylix? Perhaps
we should insist on a proper roadmap before investing?
One also has to take into condideration what is the cost to Borland of
putting Kylix in 'stacis'? The cost of the lack of communicating with
customers - when was the last time a Borland employee was in this
newsgroup to reassure their customers?
I would like to see the variables the money heads at Borland used to
calculate the IRR for Kylix. <g>
- They probably misssed out/underestimated the 'long-term' investment part.
- We know they misunderstood the Linux community completely.
- They underestimated the potential/reality of the 'Linux desktop' in a
business environment not to mention Linux on the server.
Hence my attempts here to help Borland find a solution for the Kylix
dillema. At least the product will move forward at a very low cost to
Borland.
siegs
 

Re:Re: How can Borland make from with Kylix?

Robby Tanner wrote:
Quote
>Kylix and Delphi same for me...
>I cant understand that if Delphi is a outstanding, preferable, profitable
>tool in the market, why Kylix not?


Windows and Linux are more than just different O/S's, they are different
cultures. Linux-folk are used to finding and building tools and have a lot
of access to different tools as well. WIndows development was
revolutionized with VB and Delphi whereas it is already fairly well
established for the Linux types. Also, Linux programmers are typically
looking for C/C++ solutions because that's what they're already using.

Yes, Windows and Linux are completely different cultures, Within Linux
there are also many different cultures. The 'Linux-folk' you are
refering to will never use Kylix unless it is licensed under the GPL-
they don't need it either.
Again to Borland - if you thought you targeted the Linux community as a
whole with Kylix you made a BIG mistake. Kylix will never be the
alternative for GCC for example nor does it need to be.
The correct target for Kylix are developers (initially mostly from the
Delphi community) who see Linux as business platform the way Delphi
deveolpers see Windows as a business platform. Kylix is a business tool
for Linux the same as Delphi is for Windows.
Yes, there are not millions of these developers around, but they will
come, just make sure you have a stable upto date product and market the
damn thing as a RAD Linux business tool!
siegs