Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!awd From: awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Market share for DOS database products Message-ID: <1991Apr25.205639.2079@dbase.A-T.COM> Date: 25 Apr 91 20:56:39 GMT References: <71280@brunix.UUCP> <1991Apr18.230012.12838@dbase.A-T.COM> <1991Apr21.004144.16332@welch.jhu.edu> Organization: Ashton-Tate, Inc. Lines: 83 In article <1991Apr21.004144.16332@welch.jhu.edu>, glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) writes: > In article <1991Apr18.230012.12838@dbase.A-T.COM> awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes: > >This is very non-scientific; I'm quoting my recollection of press > >accounts--if I knew corporate secrets, I couldn't tell you (well, I > >could tell you, but I'd have to kill you :-): > > > > dBASE III+/IV: 47% > > Paradox: 19% > > Fox: 6% > > Others: 18% My understanding as of this week is that dBASE's market share stands at 55% based on an independent audit of some sort. > >dBASE shook the marketplace in '89 when dBASE IV 1.0 got bad > >press. People assume that buying the market leader assures > > Why don't you at least be honest when posting propaganda news like this to > the net ... dBASE didn't lose any market share because "it got bad press". > dBASE (1.0) was a buggy, shoddy product that was obviously rushed to market > too soon, and as a result of this, it received bad press. dBASE lost market share precisely because of bad press (and perhaps bad word of mouth). You may be right that the product was rushed to market and that this may have caused the bad press, but it was market perceptions that affected the bottom line, not technical imperfections. I'd like you to consider your claim that dBASE IV 1.0 was "obviously rushed to market too soon." What "facts" do you base that statement on, other than printed reports? I used 1.0 for real applications for almost a year before switching to alpha 1.1. Have you used 1.0 and did you discover any bugs, or did you just "lose faith" based on what you heard? > >...I've heard Paradox called a "toy" > >for large applications. Sorry to appear to be maligning the competition. I've not spent much time with Paradox since its 1.0 release. I am quoting serious dBASE users, members of the dBASE Language Advisory Board. While they have no inherent reason to stick with dBASE over better products, they have a certain bias nonetheless. > [Paradox] *is* stable, it *is* powerful and it *is* an excellent > value when considering price along with these other factors. Wish I could > say these things about your product. Wish you had a single fact to mention. > >|Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, > > I find this really hard to swallow. Do you own A-T stock or something? If > you have something to say about your product, why don't you say it without > attacking competitor products? Let your product (good or bad) speak for > itself. The really funny thing here is that you are busting on a product > that is a much superior product to your own (in my opinion), and you come > off looking like a real ass. Have you ever used Paradox? My title is Senior Software Designer for Ashton-Tate. Only a couple of levels up the org chart, I doubt that they've ever heard of usenet. I am not an officer of the company and therefore I can't say anything that legally binds Ashton-Tate. That's all I'm disclaiming. Yes, I own lots of Ashton-Tate stock, and I was also a lead programmer on dBASE IV 1.0. Is this diatribe all because I made a comment about Paradox? Why should I "slip in" some propaganda when I can postnews a full-fledged flame about any competitor? I guess I've grown cynical, but I am convinced that good products don't speak for themselves. I've seen too much clever marketing and I've seen good products die for lack of distribution channels. I won't mention any particular animals, but I think you do yourself a disservice if you believe that Infoworld publishes only "facts" and decides what to spread across the front page only on the basis of what's "important." I'm glad you like Paradox; thousands do. Millions of people use dBASE. I'm sure you have a ready explanation, but given this fact, are you still sure that "superior products" speak for themselves? /alastair/ -- |Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, |which does not monitor my outbursts here. I reserve all rights to my |opinions in terms of commercial endorsements.