Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!awd From: awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Market share for DOS database products Summary: One more round Message-ID: <1991Apr30.210621.12574@dbase.a-t.com> Date: 30 Apr 91 21:06:21 GMT References: <71280@brunix.UUCP> <1991Apr18.230012.12838@dbase.A-T.COM> <73732@brunix.UUCP> Organization: Ashton-Tate, Inc. Lines: 221 Peter, let's make a deal. I'll rebut your mail then you rebut mine and we'll call this off. You can have the last word. In article <73732@brunix.UUCP>, pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: > In article <1991Apr25.205639.2079@dbase.A-T.COM>, awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes: > |> ...it was market perceptions that > |> affected the bottom line, not technical imperfections. > > Bull...It sounds like > you think the media wants to write bad things about your products. > The media wrote bad things, because it was warranted. The press does not write unwarranted attacks; the stories were based on reports of problems with 1.0, which had more problems than most released software. However, the problems were few enough that the vast majority of users might never have found them. The press wants to sell papers, and I believe that they hype up some stories (good and bad) to make them seem more important and that this was a case of that. My quoted claim, above, is that the widespread perception of a buggy product is a major factor on sales while the number of actual bugs in the product is not. It would certainly be bull if I were saying that 1.0 had no bugs and that the press just made it up; but I'm not saying that. > 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 me guess: you don't sell your software in the marketplace. I can tell because a) you seem to think that shipping upgrades to thousands of users is a trivial expense and b) you appear to believe that other commercial software companies behave differently. I know for a fact that at least one of our competitors adopts this policy when it suits them. As for A-T, we are trying to be more responsive. We shipped something like 300,000 free upgrades to 1.1-- ignoring our cost of goods, that's probably half a million dollars in postage. In addition, our new president, David Proctor, announced at 1.1's release that we will be shipping regular upgrades on a timely basis (1.2 is due for beta soon and 1.3 is in early planning). Isn't that "endearing," or can we do nothing right enough at this point? > ...I subsequently became disenchanted with dBase, > because there was no comparison. Foxbase was simply a far, far > superior product. I could not get away with arguing like this. I have a high opinion of Microsoft C, for example, over our current compiler. But if I went to my boss and told him I had become disenchanted and wanted him to buy a "far, far superior product," he would ask for facts. I couldn't get away with, "boss, there's no comparison." I deleted your comment to the effect that not only is Fox faster, but it's more reliable, too, "as it should be." Have you done _any_ analysis to prove this reliability? Did you know that when dBASE appends a blank record, we write the record and update the number of records in the header. Fox postpones updating the header in order to run faster on benchmarks. However, if a power failure interrupts your session, your appended records will be lost with Fox. In general, I would think that greater reliability would tend to be slower, not faster, so I don't think your unsupported findings are "as they should be" at all. > Does Fox Software ship products with bugs? Yes, all software > companies do. Ah, good, reality checks in. > 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. You don't know what things they have successfully swept under the carpet, and you don't know what upgrades they haven't sent. In general, however, Fox has excellent relations with its customers because they have acted sensitively and professionally. Ashton-Tate, on the other hand, has earned much of the abuse we have gotten. Fox has concentrated on winning over developers and their customers are very loyal. We have a broader constituency and it is harder to make everyone happy, but I admit we've made mistakes and we've been insensitive. I hope you'll give us a chance to improve your opinion of us. > 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. This mail thread has generated words like "bull" and "propaganda." I find it interesting to talk about my work--this is shop talk for me. I'm not trying to talk a soul into buying dBASE IV if they don't want to, but I have to reply to anyone who says "Facts? Don't waste your time with facts; haven't you heard about dBASE? It's awful." Don't be ignorant; don't make technical decisions based on emotions or worse yet on industry press written by non-technical reporters. [My argument deleted] > This sounds like the lawyer on LA Law trying to make a good case: "But > you never actually SAW the man... I have a low opinion of lawyers in general; I think we can do without most of them as a society. However, I'm flattered that you think I'm being smoothly persuasive. I'm not trying to lull you into accepting my viewpoint, I'm asking you to gather facts with which to bolster your opinions. Contrary to appearances, your opinions don't stand up on their own. > 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? Are you implying that Ashton-Tate is not a big company with serious competitive intentions? Are we idiots? Paradox is a full-featured product--"comparably powerful" describes it. I have heard (second hand) that it is optimized for fairly small (< 10000 records) tables and that large tables are cumbersome or slow, whereas dBASE's (and Fox and Clipper's) performance is more linear and the command set more orthogonal. I'm curious about your view of the software industry. My view is that companies are pretty much the same because the same players move from place to place. Many Ashton-Tate people now work at Borland; we just hired an ex-Borland employee a few weeks ago. You seem to think that Fox walks on water and that the developers at Borland "know exactly what they have to provide" but that at Ashton-Tate we're just waiting for the life-support to be switched off. > Do the software reviewers give Paradox > consistently high marks, consistently much higher than dBase... Data Based Advisor, May, 1991, our ad, page 4-5: Software Digest Independent Comparative Ratings Report for Selecting IBM PC Business Software. dBASE IV 7.0 overall, no category under 5.0. No other product can say that. Paradox got a particularly low mark in the Performance category. Software Digest is like Consumer Reports; magazine reviewers are like Family Circle, in my opinion. I wouldn't buy a refrigerator based on a review in Family Circle. But I digress: What specific reviews are _you_ quoting, Peter? > ...because there is some sort of conspiracy? Man, you guys really > are paranoid, aren't you? Leave the other guys out of this, please. This is just me and my opinions. I may be defensive (I worked on dBASE IV 1.0) but I don't think I'm paranoid. > 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? No, I'm not complaining--we own the channels, that's for sure. > 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. If I weren't so busy fending off blows, I would agree with you that Fox has earned an enviable position in the hearts and minds of its customers. (A feeling of trust and respect which time can only diminish, in my opinion, but I'm being cynical again.) > 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. That's my point; we agree. Fox is great enough that they have established a loyal following, and they have made this industry much more competitive in the last few years (of course we helped by releasing 1.0 :-). Good is _not_ enough. But wait until FoxPro 2.0 or 3.0 ships with too many bugs (e.g. Clipper 5.0). Wait until Fox sues someone over its proposed Rushmore patent. Wait until Ashton-Tate delivers what we're developing now. The situation can change. > Superior products speak for themselves to those who are qualified to > judge the differences. What's this? All animals are created equal except for the pigs who are more equal than the others? Are you really saying that stupid people buy dBASE but smart ones don't and therefore dBASE is no good? > 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. Yes, the developer community is a good barometer, but they're not the only barometer. The reason the previous management didn't coddle developers is that they represent such a small fraction of our market, like it or not. Even though they are influential, we still sell a lot of dBASEs to people who don't know any serious dBASE developers. As for your last assertion, you are ignoring mail in this newsgroup from people who are using dBASE IV because of its cross-platform compatibility, it's standardization and it's bureaucratic acceptability. I know people who've switched back, but I also know a few with stars in their eyes, too. > 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. Gosh, if only I could have convinced you that I didn't believe these things, then we might have had a chance :-). Have a good life, Peter. /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.