|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I would be surprised if you get even 2500 TS users to ante-up $100......
that would buy you 2 contract C++ programmers for a year.
It would then take at least 3 months for them to understand the basic
internals.....
then another 3 months of trial-and-error debug coding......with little
results....
then another 3 months where they go "aha !...I see (finally) the bugs...."
then another 3 months of alpha/beta testing....
and viola, you've got TS2000i fixed......at least.
Hire them for another year and you'll have some new features.
BIG CAVEAT:
TRAD & The Cruz brothers have absolutely no interest in improving or even
fixing TS2000i....
that's totally apparent with all of the "fixes" and new features for TS/Pro
and none for TS2000i in over a year....
and they have total and absolute control over the source code.
Now what ?
BTW: Who is going to put-up the office for the programmers and provide the
workstations, the compilers, and the debuggers ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prosper [mailto:brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:43 PM
> To: Bob Fulks
> Cc: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Some general questions
>
>
> Yes, although the brokerage business has it's possibilities, I agree that
> enhancing the current model was the more logical idea. I even
> suggested such
> a thing to the suggestion box at Omega about the time that mytrack got
> going.
>
> Many on this list along with the rest of us have probably got it
> wrong when
> criticizing the boys at TT. I've always heard the you get more bees with
> honey than with vinegar. If a trust was set up that would pay out when the
> product got the most needed improvements. It would give the boys some
> incentive to do something. I know that that isn't likely to happen but if
> 25000 TS owners put up $100 for such a fund that would be 2.5 million for
> incentive.
>
>
> Prosper
>
> > You seem to think that the only option was "fixing legacy software"
> > and continuing to try and sell it with slick ads on CNBC.
> >
> > Almost all software companies are trying to convert to "services" and
> > "subscription based" models so there is nothing wrong with that
> > objective. But I can think of many ways to do it without entering the
> > brokerage business.
> >
> > Think of all the things that TradeStation users would pay a monthly
> > fee for, such as:
> >
> > > Good data (real-time, historical, etc.)
> > > Good support
> > > Solid software with evolutionary enhancements
> > > Good training on trading techniques
> > > Good training on EasyLanguage programming
> > > Trading systems that really work
> > > Semiautomatic and automatic order placement with lots
> > of brokerage services
> > > Good accounting reports for tax purposes
> > > ....
> >
> > Now think of all the disadvantages of the new business model:
> >
> > > Huge liability for losses if the data is bad or the
> > software has bugs
> > > Alienating all brokerage services by competing with them
> > > Alienating all data providers by not supporting their data
> > > Overcoming customer's resistance to changing brokers
> > > Alienating the existing customer base by discontinuing
> > the product they use to make a living
> > > Brokerage services are quickly becoming a commodity with
> > very low commissions. Those you make money do it with very
> > sophisticated financial management rather than commissions.
> > > ...
> >
> > Then look at the technical and managerial challenges of making
> > it really work:
> >
> > > With data-on-demand how do bad ticks get fixed?
> > > How can there be enough server capacity to handle fast
> > markets and "Greenspan moments" reliably?
> > > Can Omega really change from the "one-time sale to the
> > naive newby" mentality to providing the quality products
> > and services required to keep customers paying the monthly
> > fees?
> > > ...
> >
> > Perhaps it will work. We all hope so. But it sure seems like
> > a high-risk strategy to me...
> >
> > Bob Fulks
> >
>
|