|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
well, I haven't noticed... how has he gone after the
institutional market? i'm curious!
H
--- tradejacker@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> if you've noticed, mb's gone right after the
> instutitional market, something
> that has alluded omega for quite some time. in fact,
> it wouldn't suprise
> me if mark makes the i-guys as his niche market,
> since it's very lucrative
> and less marketing intensive. an additional
> advantage would be fewer whiners,
> cuz the i-guys pretty much take what is given to
> them, and you wouldn't
> have to deal with the individual users, only the is
> guys.
>
> if i where mark, i'd abandon small trader market
> completely, since it really
> doesn't make much sense from a monetary or mass
> marketing strategy. he sure
> ain't doing this for the good of us all!!! ;))
>
> TJ
>
> At Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:19:02 -0800 (PST), Howard
> Jackson <hrjf4@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >It would certainly be great to have an alternative
> to
> >omega, but all of that of david vs. goliath seems
> very
> >nice in paper, but it rarely (if ever) works.
> >
> >> 1) an open programming platform with
> non-proprietary
> >> coding
> >It requires almost a genius to be at the right
> place,
> >at the right time, with the right contacts to
> develope
> >a good enough product-marketting-alliances-etc that
> >will not leave you with a big '-' in your bank
> account
> >and a few people with free software... I'll explain
> as
> >I go. That is why there has been one Sun, one Red
> Hat,
> >and little (if any) others out there that have done
> >anything significant out of thousands of companies
> in
> >the market.
> >
> >> 2) good technical support that caters to both
> >> amateur and professional -
> >There is good support because its one person
> >supporting ten guys that are using the product. You
> >almost have to wish (as a user) for the product to
> not
> >be successful in order to maintain the level of
> >support. As soon as you need more people to support
> >more users, quality of support suffers. But if the
> >product does not sell and it does not become
> popular,
> >it probably means that there is some problem with
> it.
> >This is the first catch 22
> >
> >> 3) continuous, reliable and timely
> upgrades....not
> >> ones that make you
> >Similar to point 2, if the popularity of the
> product
> >grows, more problems(bugs) and suggestions (wish
> >lists) will come up, and upgrade frequency and
> >timeliness will be hit.
> >Also, it is all very manageble when dealing with
> start
> >up numbers, but a 'david' will probably not have a
> >good quality assurance staff (if it will have qa at
> >all) and beta testers get hit with all the big bugs
> in
> >the first beta, the medium bugs in the second beta,
> >and small bugs in the third. Thus ending in
> delaying
> >significantly the release of anything new. That is
> >what apparently is hapenning now with MB.
> >THis is catch 22 #2.
> >
> >
> >In general, every aspect of the software business
> will
> >present that problem of "its good because its
> small,
> >but if it IS good it will not be small for long,
> and
> >it will turn bad when its not small anymore"...
> >
> >These are my 2 pennies, anyways...
>
>
>
=====
|