Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!apexepa!peter
From: peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Questions
Message-ID: <213@apexepa.UUCP>
Date: 5 Aug 89 16:15:08 GMT
References: <115@isgtec.UUCP> <55@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>
Reply-To: peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Apex Software Corporation, Pittsburgh  PA
Lines: 47

>The "danger" in this scenario is that your company
>would be required to give its software to its direct competitors.
>This is offset by the fact that the competitors would also have to
>give your firm any enhancements or fixes they distribute to their
>customers.  Another offsetting factor is that your firm, as the
>developer of the software, would get a big jump on the competition in
>the span between its first release and the time any competitor would
>be able to distribute an enhanced version.  And of course, by that
>time your firm would probably already be shipping their next version.

In my experience, there are very few firms which have the *management*
capacity to succeed under such an open senario.  The problem is that
the infrastructure required to sell, deliver, maintain, document, etc.
a major piece of software causes "the managers" to forget about the
next rev of the software.  Often management's focus is so diverted by
these "building a major company" issues they lose sight of the reason
for their success, their customers and third party developers.
Engineering in these companies is given carte blanch (after all, the
success of this first product proves they walk on water and know what
they're doing), whereupon engineering proceeds to splinter into 2N
projects (N == # of engineers) of which only a few actually may relate
to the current business.  The competition, which is usually a small,
focused start-up (or "tiger team" in a large company) then turns
around and begins to eat into the first company's market.  (Yes, I
know there are significant exceptions, that doesn't deny that this is
very normal senario.)

So what is a rational company to do if this is the norm and it is a
normal company run by normal managers?  It makes the technology
proprietary and protects that technology any way it can (after all,
that's what all the major companies do).  It certainly has NO interest
in making the competition's life easier by providing the keys to the
kingdom.  (Anyway, it is always easier to call a lawyer than to
question your basic assumptions about the way the world works.)

Personally, I firmly believe that the original senario is a doable,
and in fact a very profitable, approach to the software business.  But
because it assumes a non-normal management perspective (the urge to
"build a major company" replaced by the urge to build a
technologically agile, long-term profitable company), it is *very*
unlikely to become the normal way of approaching the software
business.

-- 
-----------------
Peter Palij                                               uunet!apexepa!peter
Apex Software Corporation   peter@apexepa.uucp          Phone: (412) 681-4343