Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!east!gonzoville!msmiller From: msmiller@gonzoville.Eng.Sun.COM (Mark Miller) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard Subject: Re: HyperCard 2.0 Keywords: System software, Hypercard Message-ID: <2600@east.East.Sun.COM> Date: 12 Sep 90 16:06:00 GMT References: <378@irst.UUCP> <44630@apple.Apple.COM> <2577@east.East.Sun.COM> <13000@june.cs.washington.edu> Sender: news@east.East.Sun.COM Reply-To: msmiller@Sun.COM (Mark Miller) Organization: Micro Sunsystems, Inc. Lines: 32 In article <13000@june.cs.washington.edu>, moore@cs.washington.edu (Charles Moore) writes: |>In article <2577@east.East.Sun.COM>, msmiller@gonzoville.Eng.Sun.COM (Mark Miller) writes: |>> |>> It will |>> take years before people ever again believe a ship date for Apple |>> software - that is, when a date is given - which ain't even happening |>> now. The only thing worse than being constantly given later and later |>> ship dates is being given no ship dates whatsoever. |> |>I respectfully disagree. The standard in the industry has been to |>always provide a ship date which almost invariably slips and usually |>slips by a lot. |> [...] |>If, however, a company provides a ship date, outsiders will likely |>believe that date (to a greater or lesser extent) and begin to make |>plans around it. Then, when that date slips, they will be hurt |>because their plans will fail. These two bits contradict themselves. If the "standard" is to have useless ship dates, why would anyone believe them in the first place. However, your phrasing pretty much proves my point: "... a ship date which almost invariably slips ..." You don't believe they can ship on time, the damage is done. -MSM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark S. Miller "Different "In a nation ruled by swine, UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM things all pigs are upward mobile." GEnie/AOL: MSMILLER vary" - Hunter S. Thompson