|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
James F. Mazzulla wrote:
> User: James F. Mazzulla
> Product: TradeStation 4.0 (build 20)
> Block No: 457 & 1448
> E-Mail: tagteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To All Concerned at Omega Research:
>
> I am more than a little perturbed that:
> (1) you apparently have, to this point, failed to
> adequately address concerns that users of your products have
> voiced regarding the Year 2000 issue and;
> (2) have failed to answer my e-mail messages regarding the
> foregoing issue in particular and the upgrade of
> TradeStation 4.0 in general. Further, telephone calls to
> your company have been met by a rather disturbing silence
> when these issues are mentioned.
>
> In case you are not aware of the competitive forces at work
> here, permit me to elucidate. Aspen Research, Townsend
> Analytics, Roberts-Slade, and now (of all companies) even
> Market Arts all have products =on the market at this time=
> which have the distinct potential to make =substantial=
> inroads into TradeStation's market share. The aforementioned
> companies =all= have produced and are presently marketing
> real-time charting and analysis products that incorporate
> =full-blown= 32-bit servers for data collection. In my
> opinion, this is definitely not the type of situtation which
> should be taken lightly by management at Omega. Indeed,
> this is quite serious.
>
> In the not-too-distant past, products that competed directly
> with TradeStation had neither TradeStation's functionality
> nor its graphics capabilities. This is simply no longer the
> case. In fact, in certain areas these products have eclipsed
> TradeStation. Consequently, the products are no longer
> dismissed out of hand by your customers and prospective
> customers. Rather, serious traders are beginning to question
> whether TradeStation will continue to be viable and are
> starting to take a much closer look at other products.
>
> I hereby implore you to direct =all= your efforts to the
> development of a =viable= product; one which is, at the very
> least, Year 2000 compliant. Further, I believe that you owe
> customers who have been loyal to your company and its
> products a Year 2000 patch for =existing= products as some
> of these customers may, understandably, be hesitant to
> upgrade to a completely new version. To do =any= less than
> the foregoing would be a travesty and a great disservice to
> you and users of your products. Thanks for your attention to
> this matter.
>
> Best regards,
> James F. Mazzulla
|