Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!cs.brown.edu!pew From: pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Market share for DOS database products Message-ID: <73732@brunix.UUCP> Date: 27 Apr 91 18:04:42 GMT References: <71280@brunix.UUCP> <1991Apr18.230012.12838@dbase.A-T.COM> <1991Apr21.004144.16332@welch.jhu.edu> <1991Apr25.205639.2079@dbase.A-T.COM> Sender: news@brunix.UUCP Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept. Lines: 153 In article <1991Apr25.205639.2079@dbase.A-T.COM>, awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes: |> |> 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bull. Are you guys so insecure about your products that you feel threatened by the media? If so, it's for good reason. It sounds like you think the media wants to write bad things about your products. The media wrote bad things, because it was warranted. Look at what you said above about "You may be right that the product was rushed to market". Clearly this indicates that you agree that the product was not ready. I, like most every other Fox or Clipper developer, was once a dBase person. I wrote many applications in dBase III+, and at the time, I felt that it was the best product to support. But dBase started going downhill with its multi-user version and has been sliding ever since. I remember well pulling my hair out for days trying to solve a problem, only to find out that AT had a newer version, available upon request, that fixed a key bug! AT didn't tell its customers, but if you asked the right questions of tech support, you could get yourself a better version of the software. As more people experienced this phenomenon and got outraged, AT finally shipped a free upgrade. How endearing! You wonder why developers have flocked to other products? Let's look at one of your competitors, Fox Software. I currently use their products, and I switched not because I was disenchanted by dBase, but because when I first ran Foxbase I was blown away! We wanted more speed, I saw an ad that promised just that, and for a few hundred dollars we figured we'd check out this compatible that we had never heard about. I subsequently became disenchanted with dBase, because there was no comparison. Foxbase was simply a far, far superior product. We had an enormous multi-user dBase III+ installation at one of the largest banks in the country. We converted the entire application to Foxbase in a couple of hours. Everything ran many times faster. It was astonishing. Everything was much more reliable. That's as it should be. And we added nodes whenever we wanted, at no extra cost. Doesn't AT still charge several hundred dollars for *every* node on a network? Foxbase made our client very happy. (As frosting there were a number of extremely useful new features. When did dBase finally implement save and restore screen? I don't think IV 1.0 even had this feature, something I couldn't write an application without.) Does Fox Software ship products with bugs? Yes, all software companies do. But Fox always sends free upgrades to its customers. They don't try to sweep things under the carpet to save a few bucks. They realize that they will earn even more money by retaining the respect of their customers. Do people complain about Fox's bugs as much as they complain about bugs of the same magnitude in dBase? No, not at all, because Fox Software has treated the community well, and we're willing to cut them a break. We have the utmost confidence in Fox, but we can't say the same for AT. I advocate Fox's software every chance I get. I have absolutely no relation with Fox Software whatsoever. I just happen to have great respect for the work they've done and the products they offer. |> |> 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? This sounds like the lawyer on LA Law trying to make a good case: "But you never actually SAW the man put the gun in your husband's mouth and pull the trigger, right? Didn't you say that you were groggy from the blows..." |> |> > >...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. Of course Paradox is not a toy. Borland is a big company with serious intentions of competing with dBase. They're not idiots over there. They know exactly what they have to provide in their software to compete. If it were not comparably powerful database software, do you think they would have won as many converts as they have? Are all these people idiots too? Do the software reviewers give Paradox consistently high marks, consistently much higher than dBase, because there is some sort of conspiracy? Man, you guys really are paranoid, aren't you? |> 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." Huh? You should be complaining about this, what with your inferior products that still have 55% market share? Distribution channels?! Since when has this been a problem for AT? On the other side, Fox sells its products almost entirely on its reputation and word of mouth. I can't even go into Egghead and buy a copy of FoxPro off the shelf, but there are plenty of AT products there. You may be right that "good products don't speak for themselves" - but GREAT ones do! Your in a very competitive industry, and good is not enough. |> |> 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/ Superior products speak for themselves to those who are qualified to judge the differences. The developer community is a good barometer. I know lots of people who have switched from dBase to Fox, Clipper, and Paradox. I don't know of anyone that has switched from one of these products to dBase, IV or otherwise. You are very defensive about your products, and I can certainly understand why. However, to continue to argue that you've gotten bad press and that you have superior products is just not going to turn your image or your products around. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that you really believe the things that you state above. If that is true there is no hope that AT can truly turn dBase around and make it a product that is respected in the community. Peter -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter E. Wagner (401)863-7685 pew@cs.brown.edu Department Computer Science Box 1910 pew@BROWNCS.BITNET Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 uunet!brunix!pew Woody Allen when asked if he thought sex was dirty; `If you do it right.' ----------------------------------------------------------------