|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
All excellent thoughts and commentary.....
Mark would be well-advised to shoot for the top-end technical traders,
hedge-funds, and other specialized institutional niches. The marketing and
support costs would be lower as well.
I wish him well.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Jackson [mailto:hrjf4@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 4:47 PM
> To: tradejacker@xxxxxxxxxxxx; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: TraderWareX Release
>
>
> 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...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
>
|