|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I posted the message below to the TradeLab list, however it did not appear
as other messages appeared with a later time. Several hours later, I
received a private response from Bob followed almost immediately by a notice
that I had been unsubscribed from the list. When I inquired of Bob if my
message had been withheld from the list, I got a response which clearly
evaded the question. When I persisted, I was informed that another person
removed me from the list (I sent no unsubscribe request) and that removal
caused my message to be bounced:
>Incoming messages are not sent to me or the other list administrator for
>re-posting. Instead, the list management software asks us whether to
accept
>or reject each message in its message queue. I accepted your message after
>sending a personal reply. Someone in another office removed your email
>address about the same time, because your comment about returning after the
>product was released was interpreted to mean that you wanted to be
>unsubscribed until then. I don't know which came first.
I widely recommended, on a number of trading lists to which I subscribe,
that other traders take a good look at the TradeLab web pages and join the
list. This gave the appearance, at least to some degree, that I endorsed
TradeLab. I have attempted to be balanced in my comments regarding TradeLab
and I have never engaged in personal attacks or back and forth harangues in
an attempt to impose my opinions on others. There was no reluctance on the
part of Bob or his staff to accept my comments when they were positive and
supportive. I object to my message being censored.
Since my comments have been withheld from the TradeLab list, I am forwarding
my comments to those lists on which I recommended a look at TradeLab. I
have no further interest in TradeLab and these will be my only comments on
the subject.
Earl
-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Adamy <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: TradeLab List <TradeLab@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: TL_ Beta Test Fees
>I took a strong interest in TradeLab after learning about it in February
>1998. It sounded like the kind of platform I had dreamed about for
>historical testing and systems development, and quite possibly, real-time
>trading. Based on what I read on the TradeLab web pages and on the TradeLab
>mailing list, I suggested other traders have a look at the TradeLab web
>pages and join the list. When the Fall TradeLab class was announced, I
>inquired if a working pre-release version would be available for use in and
>after the class for trading systems development; but decided to pass when I
>was told it would not. As it reported by those attending the class, it was
>poorly timed relative to the development process and not adequately
>prepared. Later we learned from Bob that much of the summer and fall had
>been occupied, not by development, but by discussions with an unnamed 3rd
>party regarding the sale of TradeLab. My only overt criticism over the many
>months during which TradeLab was under development was the frequent lack of
>communication regarding the status of TradeLab.
>
>As a prospective customer, I am troubled by the sale of beta software,
>without recourse or refund, for a product which has never been in
commercial
>release and is not yet close. Having been actively involved in the computer
>industry for some 30+ years, I know that beta testing is a prolonged and
>time consuming process. Few individuals possess the experience, patience
and
>ability to perform this work in a manner which complements and speeds the
>development process. Even fewer have the facilities to perform beta testing
>without risking their primary computer systems. I recently beta tested the
>32 bit version of a product which has been in commercial release for
nearly
>a decade under both DOS and Windows and ended up sacrificing perhaps 30
>hours per week for several months along with numerous trading
opportunities.
>
>I'm not inclined to believe that the TradeLab beta testing policy is likely
>to attract the trading professionals and qualified computer professionals
>required to deliver a high quality, feature-rich product. It is common in
>the industry for products, with no commercial history, to be provided
>free-of-charge for beta testing to qualified individuals. The inevitable
>tire kickers, which seem to concern you, quickly eliminate themselves by
>failing to contribute to the debugging process. While TradeLab may indeed
>prove to be an exceptional product, comparing an unfinished product to a
>Stradivarius seems a bit presumptuous.
>
>I admit to a case of severe skepticism - this sounds more like a fund
>raising operation than something destined to lead to a commercially
>successful trading platform which can compete with already established
>products. I do hope that those who embark on this beta testing program are
>fully aware of the effort they will be expected to expend and the financial
>risk: they may not like the product they receive, the completed product may
>not include the features which they expect (e.g. UMDS3), the product may
not
>be completed, or the product may not be a commercial success. Bob, I always
>felt you had an excellent grasp of how a great trading platform should be
>developed and I do wish you every success. I will be back when I can
>purchase a commercial release with a money back guarantee.
>
>Earl
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Brickey <sci@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: TradeLab List <TradeLab@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 1:55 PM
>Subject: Re: TL_ Beta Test Fees
>
>
>>Earl Adamy wrote:
>>
>>> There appears to be considerable confusion on several trading
>>> lists regarding TradeLab beta testing and license fees. Are beta
>>> testers expected to pay all or part of the license fee as a
>>> condition of being enrolled in the beta test process? If so,
>>> will these fees be refunded on request, prior to the beta tester
>>> receiving a copy of the finished product?
>>
>>The beta test program is not to provide product demonstrations, to satisfy
>>the curious, to provide software for use in trading, or a means to market
>>the product. Someone who thinks any of those things will not understand
>the
>>offer or be interested in it.
>>
>>There is no reason to market TradeLab until a general release version is
>>ready to ship. We therefore have no reason to provide demonstrations, to
>>satisfy curiosities, or to engage in other marketing efforts at this time.
>>
>>Beta test software is expected to have bugs. Otherwise, there would not
be
>>a need to test it. Software that has bugs should not be used in trading.
>>It would be foolish to provide beta software for use in actual trading, so
>>that isn't the purpose either.
>>
>>The beta test program has one objective. The objective is to find
>remaining
>>problems, so they can be corrected before a general release.
>>
>>Thorough testing will require work. It will have to be repeated with each
>>new build after problems are corrected. We need beta testers to do that
>>work. Many people on this list are qualified to do it. We offered to
>>compensate qualified testers who are willing to order TradeLab now and do
>>that work by giving them a large discount.
>>
>>We didn't offer to provide beta software without charge. We also didn't
>>allow it to be ordered and returned within a few days, because almost
>>everyone would want it on that basis, and:
>>
>>1. There is significant cost involved in providing installation CD's and
>>Hardlocks. Hardlocks are expensive. In addition to that, each Hardlock
>and
>>associated key diskette has to be custom programmed for each user.
>>
>>2. There is a limit to the number of testers it is practical to use. The
>>objective is to find and correct problems, not to find customers or expose
>>TradeLab to a large number of people. There is no reason to have an
>>unnecessarily large group finding problems much faster than they can be
>>fixed.
>>
>>3. There would be significant cost in providing technical support to a
>large
>>number of new users who know almost nothing about the product. There is
no
>>reason to provide that technical support to more people than we need for
>>testing.
>>
>>4. Some aspects of TradeLab have not been announced. We do not want to
>>disclose them generally until the product is ready for general release.
>>
>>We have no argument with anyone who thinks the discount is not fair
>>compensation for licensing the software now and performing that work.
>>Plenty of people, possibly more than we can use, think it is. It is
merely
>>an option for those who think it is a good deal and who are serious about
>>testing. Anyone who doesn't think it is a good deal, or who merely wants
>to
>>see the software now to satisfy their curiosity, should ignore the offer
>and
>>wait for the final release.
>>
>>The fees should not surprise anyone. Modules totaling $3245 were listed
on
>>the web site before we announced they were being combined with other code
>to
>>form a complete trading program. Why would anyone expect the combined
>price
>>to be much different than the module total?
>>
>>We have no argument with anyone who thinks the initial or service fees are
>>too high. Some people will think they are. However, others do not.
>>Several people have told us they should be two or three times higher.
>>
>>S&P 500 futures traders typically make or lose several thousand dollars a
>>day, even trading a single contract. The cost of TradeLab is
insignificant
>>compared to their cumulative transactions over time. Someone who is able
>to
>>improve performance by even a small percentage will make back the cost of
>>TradeLab quickly.
>>
>>The situation is different for those who only hope to trade some day.
>>TradeLab may be a set of tools they will not be able to afford until they
>>actually trade.
>>
>>The situation is similar in others fields. Violin prices range from a few
>>hundred to a few hundred thousand dollars. Beginning violinists would
love
>>to have an expensive violin, but most have to settle for an inexpensive
>>student model until their playing improves to where they can earn money
>>playing. Those learning to trade would love to have expensive trading
>>software, but they may have to use student-quality software until they
>learn
>>to trade well enough to justify something better.
>>
>>Is TradeLab really that much better than ordinary software? Is a
>>Stradivarius really that much better than a student violin? There
wouldn't
>>be much difference if I played them. One would sound as bad as the other,
>>but there would be a big difference in the hands of a qualified violinist.
>>The same is true of TradeLab. Use TradeLab like beginners use
less-capable
>>software and the result will be equally bad. Use it to do things that
>>cannot be done with other software and the result can be much different.
>>
>> -Bob Brickey
>> Scientific Approaches
>> sci@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>
>
>
|