|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
brian wrote:
>The big company issue is not as silly as you think. If you want to be
>compatible with the rest of the world then you buy what everybody else is
>buying. Being compatible with everyboyd else has HUGE advantages. I use
>Quicken for personal finances because my bank gave it to me. Given, a
>similar feature set, I would use MS Money if I had to buy a PF package
>because it has a better interface and MS has the money to hire the QA
>personnel to make sure it works right the first time. Of course, if MS
>Money doesn't do something you need, then of course you'd go with the other
>product even though you had to suffer with other problems.
Quicken is the better product (IMO) and MS has been playing catch up with
Intuit and Quicken for years. MS even wanted to buy Intuit because they
realized Quicken was the leader, now and into the foreseeable future. If
you want compatibilty (ie, standardization), then you would, according to
your logic, buy Quicken. But if you want to buy big company products, then
you go with MS and Money. I still think that this logic is silly.
>This is a dangerous attitude. Do you like wasting your time learning new
>programs? Do you like loosing sleep wondering if your old data is
>compatible? I want 1 product from a company that I know with fair
>certainty is going to be around now and later. I can then set to work on
>really learning that software and getting the most from it now and later.
> If you were a programmer realying on Turbo Pascal (or even Delphi) to put
>food on the table you would have died a long time ago. However, since I
>knew MS Basic, Visual Basic was easy to learn and I'm a fat cat since all
>the major companies (read: deep pockets) want VB programmers.
Actually, my attitude is to buy the best possible product for the money.
How long a company has been in existence is irrelevant. Program learning
curves are largely irrelevant in a Windows universe. Nearly all programs
now are standardized to a Windows architecture, so liitle time is wasted
learning new programs. Data compatiblity is irrelevant as long as ASCII
and data translators exist. The Pascal vs Basic example served as a
comparison between a superior vs inferior product (IMO). Basic didn't
accomplish the tasks at hand as readily as Turbo Pascal did at the time.
Now fast forward in time to 1990...then I was programming VB interfaces for
high speed data collection in WFW 3.11. VB was the superior product at this
time for the task at hand. If you don't evolve, then you lose the edge.
My point still remains the same...get the best product for what you need to
do regardless of the size of the company or length of its existence.
Innovation exists mainly in smaller, less capitalized companies. And
acquiring that innovation gives you the edge...
><you wrote>
>"TradeLab (no s) has far less risk now than TS because TL is Y2K compliant,
>and for the next 3 million years, according to Bob Brickey. <G> And TL will
>give a professional trader a superior edge. On the other hand, without
>upgrades, TS dies on Dec. 31, 1999. And the Y2K patch is in the realm of
>vaporware... "
>
>Why does Y2K compliance equate to less risk in your mind? Seems to me the
>larger company with a larger installed base has a GREAT DEAL more to loose
>by not supplying Y2K compliance than a small start up like TradeLabs (or
>whatever the company is called). And don't think for a second that TS5
>isn't going to be Y2K compliant and that the patch for TS4 won't be out in
>PLENTY of time. Right now, I don't really care about it because that's
>1.5 years off in the future. It can be fixed as quick as a download and an
>install.
You're clearly wrong here...Y2K is NOW!!! TS is NOT compatible NOW. Try
to enter a future contract or leap past Dec. 31, 1999 in the Omega server.
I'll bet that most folks will feel the Y2K heat in a year. You can bet the
farm that Omega is losing big bucks by not being Y2K compatible at a time
when most of their competitors are. Why? The wait and see game played by
consumers...who wants to buy a product for $2K that may be obsolete in 18
months? This situation clearly worries Omega. Why do you think Omega was so
hot to buy UMDS? Because it's a superior product to their own server. I
agree, though, that Omega would have to be brain dead, dumb ass, stupid to
ignore their installed base of TS users.
However, TradeLab and UMDS is Y2K NOW (along with Day Trader, Ensign (I
think), CQG, etc). When TL releases its link to UMDS, then TL will be in a
superior position. Why? I (and others) will be able to collect post-1999
data from practically any data feed BEFORE TS 5's release (and definitely
before the TS 4's patch upgrade). Also via TL, I can export that data to
any charting program of my choice. Then I'll have the edge over the TS
users who are still waiting for their "big company" and its promises.
Remember well the lesson of the 2 year delay associated with the release of
TS 3.5. I see way too much faith in Omega given their past history of
muffed software upgrades.
><you wrote>
>"If someone is so worried about BB being around in the future, then I
>suggest that you do as I did and do some research first. Bob's been
>developing high tech software for business and US Goverment (high security
>installations...nuke labs) almost forever. "
>
>I'm sure bob's a genius and has tons of money. How long will he stick
>around if this doesn't turn out to be a profitable venture? That remains
>to be seen. Time will tell. He's not doing this for charity. I don't think
>bob's brilliance is a good indicator of weather or not he'll succeed. It
>doesn't take a phi beta cappa to develop great software or drive a company.
> What it does take is marketing $$$, a superior product (development $$$),
>all delivered at a better price.
The internet make your marketing point moot. Bob's website generates a
hell of a lot of sales just by word of mouth. So sales = viability =
longevity. Fortunately, we are more patient with Bob delivering his wares
because he has a superior product. The days of expensive marketing
campaigns are drawing to a close. As far as big development bucks equating
to better products, that simply is not true. Small companies drive the
innovation curve forward rather than the large companies (ie, MS). Then
the big, slothy companies buy out the smaller, innovative ones.
><you wrote>
>"So I'm not too concerned about
>his longevity or capitalization. Few were concerned about Gates in a
>basement or Jobs in a garage a few years back <G>"
>
>Not worried about Gates? Jobs? How do you know? Anyway, if you had bet on
>Jobs you would have lost. Big time! How do I know? Because I did.
> Consequently, I know Mac and Apple II assembly and not Intel assembly. A
>lot of good that does me, huh!
But you were first out the chute! You had the edge for a time. I remember
well that all the trading and charting software programs were developed for
Apples and Mac, and virtually none for IBM-PC. Traders that used Apples
and Macs had the edge. Then the tide shifted in favor of IBM because of
Lotus 123 on the PC. I know people that had both Apple and IBM computers
and trading software for both. They had the edge because they had feet in
both camps while Apple and IBM slugged it out.
The edge always shifts to people (traders) that utilize superior products
for the task at hand. Big or small companies...it really doesn't matter.
Software and hardware will continue to evolve and the edge will always
shift in favor of those that use superior innovations.
-Tony Haas
|