pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) (04/08/91)
Does anyone know the approximate market share breakdown for database
software in the MS-DOS realm? What about for just dBase dialects?
Thanks.
Peter
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter E. Wagner (401)863-7685 pew@cs.brown.edu
Department Computer Science Box 1910
Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
Woody Allen when asked if he thought sex was dirty;
`If you do it right.'
----------------------------------------------------------------awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) (04/19/91)
In article <71280@brunix.UUCP>, pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: > Does anyone know the approximate market share breakdown for database > software in the MS-DOS realm? What about for just dBase dialects? This is very non-scientific; I'm quoting my recollection of press accounts--if I knew corporate secrets, I couldn't tell you (well, I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you :-): dBASE III+/IV: 47% Paradox: 19% Fox: 6% Others: 18% Clipper, WordTech, Oracle, etc. are lost in the noise--no one competitor has more than 5% except those shown, as I remember. The article I read noted that Paradox's growth and dBASE's decline rates were significant--I remember when dBASE's share was in the sixties. These numbers surprise me because in the developer circles I travel in, Fox and Clipper are much more popular than they seem when you look at overall market share--it's true that techies influence sales, but it's also true that techies are a very small percentage of the marketplace. You can't go wrong buying the industry leader (IBM, Microsoft Word, Word Perfect, dBASE...) and choosing something else involves an investment of time and thought and some risk. dBASE shook the marketplace in '89 when dBASE IV 1.0 got bad press. People assume that buying the market leader assures stability and minimum risk; shake that faith and watch your market share fall. Compaq took off, if you remember, when IBM had problems getting reliable hard disks for its new PC/AT. Luckily for Ashton-Tate, our competitors didn't seem ready to pounce. I think people went to Borland desparate for stability. Borland delivers that, but I've heard Paradox called a "toy" for large applications. If Ashton-Tate can convince the market that we are stable again (and it's all perceptions, anyway), I think our market share will climb again. It's already stopped eroding, but gaining share is known to be extremely difficult in any market. Long-winded response unsupported by facts. Hope it helps, anyway. /alastair/ -- |Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, |which does not monitor my outbursts here. I reserve all rights to my |opinions in terms of commercial endorsements.
glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) (04/21/91)
In article <1991Apr18.230012.12838@dbase.A-T.COM> awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes: >In article <71280@brunix.UUCP>, pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: >> Does anyone know the approximate market share breakdown for database >> software in the MS-DOS realm? What about for just dBase dialects? > >This is very non-scientific; I'm quoting my recollection of press >accounts--if I knew corporate secrets, I couldn't tell you (well, I >could tell you, but I'd have to kill you :-): > > dBASE III+/IV: 47% > Paradox: 19% > Fox: 6% > Others: 18% > [ stuff deleted ] >dBASE shook the marketplace in '89 when dBASE IV 1.0 got bad >press. People assume that buying the market leader assures Why don't you at least be honest when posting propaganda news like this to the net ... dBASE didn't lose any market share because "it got bad press". dBASE (1.0) was a buggy, shoddy product that was obviously rushed to market too soon, and as a result of this, it received bad press. >pounce. I think people went to Borland desparate for stability. >Borland delivers that, but I've heard Paradox called a "toy" >for large applications. If Ashton-Tate can convince the market >that we are stable again (and it's all perceptions, anyway), Perceptions? That's *all* it is?? And *what* causes these bad perceptions anyway? People reading the (supposedly undeserving) bad press that you have received? Why are you posting this bullshit to this newsgroup? As for Paradox being a toy, I have developed Paradox applications which consist of tens of thousands of lines of code, and I am very happy with this product. It *is* stable, it *is* powerful and it *is* an excellent value when considering price along with these other factors. Wish I could say these things about your product. >|Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, I find this really hard to swallow. Do you own A-T stock or something? If you have something to say about your product, why don't you say it without attacking competitor products? Let your product (good or bad) speak for itself. The really funny thing here is that you are busting on a product that is a much superior product to your own (in my opinion), and you come off looking like a real ass. Have you ever used Paradox? Glenn
awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr21.004144.16332@welch.jhu.edu>, glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) writes: > In article <1991Apr18.230012.12838@dbase.A-T.COM> awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes: > >This is very non-scientific; I'm quoting my recollection of press > >accounts--if I knew corporate secrets, I couldn't tell you (well, I > >could tell you, but I'd have to kill you :-): > > > > dBASE III+/IV: 47% > > Paradox: 19% > > Fox: 6% > > Others: 18% My understanding as of this week is that dBASE's market share stands at 55% based on an independent audit of some sort. > >dBASE shook the marketplace in '89 when dBASE IV 1.0 got bad > >press. People assume that buying the market leader assures > > Why don't you at least be honest when posting propaganda news like this to > the net ... dBASE didn't lose any market share because "it got bad press". > dBASE (1.0) was a buggy, shoddy product that was obviously rushed to market > too soon, and as a result of this, it received bad press. dBASE lost market share precisely because of bad press (and perhaps bad word of mouth). You may be right that the product was rushed to market and that this may have caused the bad press, but it was market perceptions that affected the bottom line, not technical imperfections. I'd like you to consider your claim that dBASE IV 1.0 was "obviously rushed to market too soon." What "facts" do you base that statement on, other than printed reports? I used 1.0 for real applications for almost a year before switching to alpha 1.1. Have you used 1.0 and did you discover any bugs, or did you just "lose faith" based on what you heard? > >...I've heard Paradox called a "toy" > >for large applications. Sorry to appear to be maligning the competition. I've not spent much time with Paradox since its 1.0 release. I am quoting serious dBASE users, members of the dBASE Language Advisory Board. While they have no inherent reason to stick with dBASE over better products, they have a certain bias nonetheless. > [Paradox] *is* stable, it *is* powerful and it *is* an excellent > value when considering price along with these other factors. Wish I could > say these things about your product. Wish you had a single fact to mention. > >|Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, > > I find this really hard to swallow. Do you own A-T stock or something? If > you have something to say about your product, why don't you say it without > attacking competitor products? Let your product (good or bad) speak for > itself. The really funny thing here is that you are busting on a product > that is a much superior product to your own (in my opinion), and you come > off looking like a real ass. Have you ever used Paradox? My title is Senior Software Designer for Ashton-Tate. Only a couple of levels up the org chart, I doubt that they've ever heard of usenet. I am not an officer of the company and therefore I can't say anything that legally binds Ashton-Tate. That's all I'm disclaiming. Yes, I own lots of Ashton-Tate stock, and I was also a lead programmer on dBASE IV 1.0. Is this diatribe all because I made a comment about Paradox? Why should I "slip in" some propaganda when I can postnews a full-fledged flame about any competitor? I guess I've grown cynical, but I am convinced that good products don't speak for themselves. I've seen too much clever marketing and I've seen good products die for lack of distribution channels. I won't mention any particular animals, but I think you do yourself a disservice if you believe that Infoworld publishes only "facts" and decides what to spread across the front page only on the basis of what's "important." I'm glad you like Paradox; thousands do. Millions of people use dBASE. I'm sure you have a ready explanation, but given this fact, are you still sure that "superior products" speak for themselves? /alastair/ -- |Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, |which does not monitor my outbursts here. I reserve all rights to my |opinions in terms of commercial endorsements.
pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) (04/28/91)
In article <1991Apr25.205639.2079@dbase.A-T.COM>, awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes: |> |> dBASE lost market share precisely because of bad press (and perhaps bad |> word of mouth). You may be right that the product was rushed to market and |> that this may have caused the bad press, but it was market perceptions that |> affected the bottom line, not technical imperfections. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bull. Are you guys so insecure about your products that you feel threatened by the media? If so, it's for good reason. It sounds like you think the media wants to write bad things about your products. The media wrote bad things, because it was warranted. Look at what you said above about "You may be right that the product was rushed to market". Clearly this indicates that you agree that the product was not ready. I, like most every other Fox or Clipper developer, was once a dBase person. I wrote many applications in dBase III+, and at the time, I felt that it was the best product to support. But dBase started going downhill with its multi-user version and has been sliding ever since. I remember well pulling my hair out for days trying to solve a problem, only to find out that AT had a newer version, available upon request, that fixed a key bug! AT didn't tell its customers, but if you asked the right questions of tech support, you could get yourself a better version of the software. As more people experienced this phenomenon and got outraged, AT finally shipped a free upgrade. How endearing! You wonder why developers have flocked to other products? Let's look at one of your competitors, Fox Software. I currently use their products, and I switched not because I was disenchanted by dBase, but because when I first ran Foxbase I was blown away! We wanted more speed, I saw an ad that promised just that, and for a few hundred dollars we figured we'd check out this compatible that we had never heard about. I subsequently became disenchanted with dBase, because there was no comparison. Foxbase was simply a far, far superior product. We had an enormous multi-user dBase III+ installation at one of the largest banks in the country. We converted the entire application to Foxbase in a couple of hours. Everything ran many times faster. It was astonishing. Everything was much more reliable. That's as it should be. And we added nodes whenever we wanted, at no extra cost. Doesn't AT still charge several hundred dollars for *every* node on a network? Foxbase made our client very happy. (As frosting there were a number of extremely useful new features. When did dBase finally implement save and restore screen? I don't think IV 1.0 even had this feature, something I couldn't write an application without.) Does Fox Software ship products with bugs? Yes, all software companies do. But Fox always sends free upgrades to its customers. They don't try to sweep things under the carpet to save a few bucks. They realize that they will earn even more money by retaining the respect of their customers. Do people complain about Fox's bugs as much as they complain about bugs of the same magnitude in dBase? No, not at all, because Fox Software has treated the community well, and we're willing to cut them a break. We have the utmost confidence in Fox, but we can't say the same for AT. I advocate Fox's software every chance I get. I have absolutely no relation with Fox Software whatsoever. I just happen to have great respect for the work they've done and the products they offer. |> |> I'd like you to consider your claim that dBASE IV 1.0 was "obviously rushed |> to market too soon." What "facts" do you base that statement on, other than |> printed reports? I used 1.0 for real applications for almost a year before |> switching to alpha 1.1. Have you used 1.0 and did you discover any bugs, |> or did you just "lose faith" based on what you heard? This sounds like the lawyer on LA Law trying to make a good case: "But you never actually SAW the man put the gun in your husband's mouth and pull the trigger, right? Didn't you say that you were groggy from the blows..." |> |> > >...I've heard Paradox called a "toy" |> > >for large applications. |> |> Sorry to appear to be maligning the competition. I've not spent much |> time with Paradox since its 1.0 release. I am quoting serious dBASE |> users, members of the dBASE Language Advisory Board. While they have |> no inherent reason to stick with dBASE over better products, they have |> a certain bias nonetheless. |> |> > [Paradox] *is* stable, it *is* powerful and it *is* an excellent |> > value when considering price along with these other factors. Wish I could |> > say these things about your product. |> |> Wish you had a single fact to mention. Of course Paradox is not a toy. Borland is a big company with serious intentions of competing with dBase. They're not idiots over there. They know exactly what they have to provide in their software to compete. If it were not comparably powerful database software, do you think they would have won as many converts as they have? Are all these people idiots too? Do the software reviewers give Paradox consistently high marks, consistently much higher than dBase, because there is some sort of conspiracy? Man, you guys really are paranoid, aren't you? |> Is this diatribe all because I made a comment about Paradox? Why should |> I "slip in" some propaganda when I can postnews a full-fledged flame about |> any competitor? I guess I've grown cynical, but I am convinced that |> good products don't speak for themselves. I've seen too much clever |> marketing and I've seen good products die for lack of distribution |> channels. I won't mention any particular animals, but I think you |> do yourself a disservice if you believe that Infoworld publishes only |> "facts" and decides what to spread across the front page only on the |> basis of what's "important." Huh? You should be complaining about this, what with your inferior products that still have 55% market share? Distribution channels?! Since when has this been a problem for AT? On the other side, Fox sells its products almost entirely on its reputation and word of mouth. I can't even go into Egghead and buy a copy of FoxPro off the shelf, but there are plenty of AT products there. You may be right that "good products don't speak for themselves" - but GREAT ones do! Your in a very competitive industry, and good is not enough. |> |> I'm glad you like Paradox; thousands do. Millions of people use dBASE. |> I'm sure you have a ready explanation, but given this fact, are you |> still sure that "superior products" speak for themselves? |> |> /alastair/ Superior products speak for themselves to those who are qualified to judge the differences. The developer community is a good barometer. I know lots of people who have switched from dBase to Fox, Clipper, and Paradox. I don't know of anyone that has switched from one of these products to dBase, IV or otherwise. You are very defensive about your products, and I can certainly understand why. However, to continue to argue that you've gotten bad press and that you have superior products is just not going to turn your image or your products around. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that you really believe the things that you state above. If that is true there is no hope that AT can truly turn dBase around and make it a product that is respected in the community. Peter -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter E. Wagner (401)863-7685 pew@cs.brown.edu Department Computer Science Box 1910 pew@BROWNCS.BITNET Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 uunet!brunix!pew Woody Allen when asked if he thought sex was dirty; `If you do it right.' ----------------------------------------------------------------
dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) (04/28/91)
In article <73732@brunix.UUCP> pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: |> I'd like you to consider your claim that dBASE IV 1.0 was "obviously rushed |> to market too soon." What "facts" do you base that statement on, other than |> printed reports? I used 1.0 for real applications for almost a year before |> switching to alpha 1.1. Have you used 1.0 and did you discover any bugs, |> or did you just "lose faith" based on what you heard? This sounds like the lawyer on LA Law trying to make a good case: "But you never actually SAW the man put the gun in your husband's mouth and pull the trigger, right? Didn't you say that you were groggy from the blows..." Excuse me. I don't use any of the products under discussion and I don't have any opinions or any stakes in the point under dispute. But I would like to point out that your reply to Mr. Dallas's question isn't very convincing. He asked a pretty straightforward question. He wanted to know on what evidence you based your judgement. Instead of making any attempt to answer his question, you simply state that it is so obvious that there is no need to answer. Perhaps you have enough information about the situation that it's obvious to you, but it may not be so obvious to everyone else. I presume you aren't really trying to persuade Mr. Dallas; I presume you don't really think that you're going to change his opinion about this. You're really addressing the other people who read comp.databases. If you want to persuade them that your opinion is more accurate than his, I think you'd be more effective if you presented your evidence. So did you use 1.1? Did you discover any bugs? If you didn't do it first hand, you must have heard about it from somewhere else. Was that somewhere else the press, or something other than the press? I think these are fair questions, and I'd be interested to hear your answers. Do the software reviewers give Paradox consistently high marks, consistently much higher than dBase, because there is some sort of conspiracy? Man, you guys really are paranoid, aren't you? Similarly, stripped of the sarcastic tone, this is a fair question for Mr. Dallas to address. He said that "it was market perceptions that affected the bottom line, not technical imperfections." Now, the most obvious cause of negative perceptions is negative reality, but that's not necessarily the only cause. So, the interesting question is if there weren't significant technical imperfections, why did negative market perceptions arise? Distribution channels?! Since when has this been a problem for AT? (He didn't say that it was. He was speaking in general, about reasons that software products can have problems other than technical inferiority. I don't think he meant to imply that Dbase itself has this problem.) Superior products speak for themselves to those who are qualified to judge the differences. The developer community is a good barometer. So is it your position that the majority of product buyers (or 44%, or whatever the market share is) are not qualified to judge the difference? If so, then I think you're actually agreeing with Mr. Dallas's main point, which is that product success is not necessarily determined solely by "technical superiority". And at first it seemed to me that you weren't agreeing about anything...
glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) (04/28/91)
In article <73732@brunix.UUCP> pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: >In article <1991Apr25.205639.2079@dbase.A-T.COM>, awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes: >|> >|> dBASE lost market share precisely because of bad press (and perhaps bad >|> word of mouth). You may be right that the product was rushed to market and >|> that this may have caused the bad press, but it was market perceptions that >|> affected the bottom line, not technical imperfections. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Bull. Are you guys so insecure about your products that you feel >threatened by the media? If so, it's for good reason. It sounds like >you think the media wants to write bad things about your products. >The media wrote bad things, because it was warranted. Look at what >you said above about "You may be right that the product was rushed to >market". Clearly this indicates that you agree that the product was >not ready. I would just like to say that everything that Peter said in his posting goes double for me, but at the same time I would like to apologize for posting followups for nothing more than busting you guys out. I have heard so many good things about FoxPro (especially with the 2.0 version) that I am thinking about purchasing it and trying it out too. You guys at A-T really should not try to use netnews as a means of spreading dBASE related propaganda. Someone who works for A-T and owns A-T stock posting second hand, negative comments about a competitors product? That's just not cool. It's not news. I'm not sure how you are interpreting the followup postings, but from my viewpoint, you guys are really taking a beating! Maybe you can call for a vote on a new newsgroup - comp.propaganda.bs. Glenn #include <std_disclaimer.h>
pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr28.020220.225@odi.com>, dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes: |> In article <73732@brunix.UUCP> pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: |> |> |> I'd like you to consider your claim that dBASE IV 1.0 was "obviously rushed |> |> to market too soon." What "facts" do you base that statement on, other than |> |> printed reports? I used 1.0 for real applications for almost a year before |> |> switching to alpha 1.1. Have you used 1.0 and did you discover any bugs, |> |> or did you just "lose faith" based on what you heard? |> |> This sounds like the lawyer on LA Law trying to make a good case: "But |> you never actually SAW the man put the gun in your husband's mouth and |> pull the trigger, right? Didn't you say that you were groggy from the |> blows..." |> |> Excuse me. I don't use any of the products under discussion and I |> don't have any opinions or any stakes in the point under dispute. But |> I would like to point out that your reply to Mr. Dallas's question |> isn't very convincing. He asked a pretty straightforward question. |> He wanted to know on what evidence you based your judgement. Instead |> of making any attempt to answer his question, you simply state that it |> is so obvious that there is no need to answer. Perhaps you have |> enough information about the situation that it's obvious to you, but |> it may not be so obvious to everyone else. No I can't cite specific articles or experience. But I've been developing database software for seven years, and as I mentioned I used to be a dBase man. However, the industry passed AT by (technologically), and it is *obvious* that they do not have a competitive product. I know many people in the industry, and I've never heard a good thing said about dBase IV. If it were a truly good product that was worth my time and money, I would expect somebody to speak well of it. I have read that IV 1.1 is adequate now, however, I have a product in FoxPro that is superb and keeps getting better. Adequate is no competition. I need to see something that tells me that dBase is faster and better than FoxPro before I go to look at dBase again. |> |> I presume you aren't really trying to persuade Mr. Dallas; I presume |> you don't really think that you're going to change his opinion about |> this. You're really addressing the other people who read |> comp.databases. If you want to persuade them that your opinion is |> more accurate than his, I think you'd be more effective if you |> presented your evidence. |> |> So did you use 1.1? Did you discover any bugs? If you didn't do it |> first hand, you must have heard about it from somewhere else. Was |> that somewhere else the press, or something other than the press? I |> think these are fair questions, and I'd be interested to hear your |> answers. See above. |> |> Do the software reviewers give Paradox |> consistently high marks, consistently much higher than dBase, because |> there is some sort of conspiracy? Man, you guys really are paranoid, |> aren't you? |> |> Similarly, stripped of the sarcastic tone, this is a fair question for |> Mr. Dallas to address. He said that "it was market perceptions that |> affected the bottom line, not technical imperfections." Now, the most |> obvious cause of negative perceptions is negative reality, but that's |> not necessarily the only cause. So, the interesting question is if |> there weren't significant technical imperfections, why did negative |> market perceptions arise? |> |> Distribution channels?! |> Since when has this been a problem for AT? |> |> (He didn't say that it was. He was speaking in general, about reasons |> that software products can have problems other than technical |> inferiority. I don't think he meant to imply that Dbase itself has |> this problem.) |> |> Superior products speak for themselves to those who are qualified to |> judge the differences. The developer community is a good barometer. |> |> So is it your position that the majority of product buyers (or 44%, or |> whatever the market share is) are not qualified to judge the |> difference? If so, then I think you're actually agreeing with Mr. |> Dallas's main point, which is that product success is not necessarily |> determined solely by "technical superiority". And at first it seemed |> to me that you weren't agreeing about anything... The fact that AT still has 55% market share is evidence that the majority of product buyers are not qualified to judge the difference. But it is not the customer's fault. It is sellers fault and the distributors fault. These people care about $, not promoting good software technology. dBase still has name recognition, and in a field where many customers are intimidated by computers alone, there is something reassuring about a product that you've heard about and that you know many people have already used. They are also big, and size alone often generates sales. Mr. Dallas should not be complaining about a product's success being determined by "technical superiority". I'm am certain that AT's dominant market share would quickly dwindle if this were the case. What evidence do I have? The developer community's feedback. In my opinion, these are the qualified judges. I would like to apoligize for the tone of my previous follow-up. It was definitely more caustic than it needed to be. Yes, I was disturbed by AT's gloating over its recent court victory. However, I agree that this forum should not be used for shooting petty barbs. Peter -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter E. Wagner (401)863-7685 pew@cs.brown.edu Department Computer Science Box 1910 pew@BROWNCS.BITNET Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 uunet!brunix!pew Woody Allen when asked if he thought sex was dirty; `If you do it right.' ----------------------------------------------------------------
awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) (05/01/91)
Peter, let's make a deal. I'll rebut your mail then you rebut mine and we'll call this off. You can have the last word. In article <73732@brunix.UUCP>, pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: > In article <1991Apr25.205639.2079@dbase.A-T.COM>, awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes: > |> ...it was market perceptions that > |> affected the bottom line, not technical imperfections. > > Bull...It sounds like > you think the media wants to write bad things about your products. > The media wrote bad things, because it was warranted. The press does not write unwarranted attacks; the stories were based on reports of problems with 1.0, which had more problems than most released software. However, the problems were few enough that the vast majority of users might never have found them. The press wants to sell papers, and I believe that they hype up some stories (good and bad) to make them seem more important and that this was a case of that. My quoted claim, above, is that the widespread perception of a buggy product is a major factor on sales while the number of actual bugs in the product is not. It would certainly be bull if I were saying that 1.0 had no bugs and that the press just made it up; but I'm not saying that. > I remember well pulling my hair out for days trying to solve a > problem, only to find out that AT had a newer version, available upon > request, that fixed a key bug! AT didn't tell its customers, but if > you asked the right questions of tech support, you could get yourself > a better version of the software. As more people experienced this > phenomenon and got outraged, AT finally shipped a free upgrade. How > endearing! You wonder why developers have flocked to other products? Let me guess: you don't sell your software in the marketplace. I can tell because a) you seem to think that shipping upgrades to thousands of users is a trivial expense and b) you appear to believe that other commercial software companies behave differently. I know for a fact that at least one of our competitors adopts this policy when it suits them. As for A-T, we are trying to be more responsive. We shipped something like 300,000 free upgrades to 1.1-- ignoring our cost of goods, that's probably half a million dollars in postage. In addition, our new president, David Proctor, announced at 1.1's release that we will be shipping regular upgrades on a timely basis (1.2 is due for beta soon and 1.3 is in early planning). Isn't that "endearing," or can we do nothing right enough at this point? > ...I subsequently became disenchanted with dBase, > because there was no comparison. Foxbase was simply a far, far > superior product. I could not get away with arguing like this. I have a high opinion of Microsoft C, for example, over our current compiler. But if I went to my boss and told him I had become disenchanted and wanted him to buy a "far, far superior product," he would ask for facts. I couldn't get away with, "boss, there's no comparison." I deleted your comment to the effect that not only is Fox faster, but it's more reliable, too, "as it should be." Have you done _any_ analysis to prove this reliability? Did you know that when dBASE appends a blank record, we write the record and update the number of records in the header. Fox postpones updating the header in order to run faster on benchmarks. However, if a power failure interrupts your session, your appended records will be lost with Fox. In general, I would think that greater reliability would tend to be slower, not faster, so I don't think your unsupported findings are "as they should be" at all. > Does Fox Software ship products with bugs? Yes, all software > companies do. Ah, good, reality checks in. > But Fox always sends free upgrades to its customers. > They don't try to sweep things under the carpet to save a few bucks. > They realize that they will earn even more money by retaining the > respect of their customers. You don't know what things they have successfully swept under the carpet, and you don't know what upgrades they haven't sent. In general, however, Fox has excellent relations with its customers because they have acted sensitively and professionally. Ashton-Tate, on the other hand, has earned much of the abuse we have gotten. Fox has concentrated on winning over developers and their customers are very loyal. We have a broader constituency and it is harder to make everyone happy, but I admit we've made mistakes and we've been insensitive. I hope you'll give us a chance to improve your opinion of us. > I advocate Fox's software every chance I get. I have absolutely no > relation with Fox Software whatsoever. I just happen to have great > respect for the work they've done and the products they offer. This mail thread has generated words like "bull" and "propaganda." I find it interesting to talk about my work--this is shop talk for me. I'm not trying to talk a soul into buying dBASE IV if they don't want to, but I have to reply to anyone who says "Facts? Don't waste your time with facts; haven't you heard about dBASE? It's awful." Don't be ignorant; don't make technical decisions based on emotions or worse yet on industry press written by non-technical reporters. [My argument deleted] > This sounds like the lawyer on LA Law trying to make a good case: "But > you never actually SAW the man... I have a low opinion of lawyers in general; I think we can do without most of them as a society. However, I'm flattered that you think I'm being smoothly persuasive. I'm not trying to lull you into accepting my viewpoint, I'm asking you to gather facts with which to bolster your opinions. Contrary to appearances, your opinions don't stand up on their own. > Of course Paradox is not a toy. Borland is a big company with serious > intentions of competing with dBase. They're not idiots over there. > They know exactly what they have to provide in their software to > compete. If it were not comparably powerful database software, do you > think they would have won as many converts as they have? Are all > these people idiots too? Are you implying that Ashton-Tate is not a big company with serious competitive intentions? Are we idiots? Paradox is a full-featured product--"comparably powerful" describes it. I have heard (second hand) that it is optimized for fairly small (< 10000 records) tables and that large tables are cumbersome or slow, whereas dBASE's (and Fox and Clipper's) performance is more linear and the command set more orthogonal. I'm curious about your view of the software industry. My view is that companies are pretty much the same because the same players move from place to place. Many Ashton-Tate people now work at Borland; we just hired an ex-Borland employee a few weeks ago. You seem to think that Fox walks on water and that the developers at Borland "know exactly what they have to provide" but that at Ashton-Tate we're just waiting for the life-support to be switched off. > Do the software reviewers give Paradox > consistently high marks, consistently much higher than dBase... Data Based Advisor, May, 1991, our ad, page 4-5: Software Digest Independent Comparative Ratings Report for Selecting IBM PC Business Software. dBASE IV 7.0 overall, no category under 5.0. No other product can say that. Paradox got a particularly low mark in the Performance category. Software Digest is like Consumer Reports; magazine reviewers are like Family Circle, in my opinion. I wouldn't buy a refrigerator based on a review in Family Circle. But I digress: What specific reviews are _you_ quoting, Peter? > ...because there is some sort of conspiracy? Man, you guys really > are paranoid, aren't you? Leave the other guys out of this, please. This is just me and my opinions. I may be defensive (I worked on dBASE IV 1.0) but I don't think I'm paranoid. > Huh? You should be complaining about this, what with your inferior > products that still have 55% market share? Distribution channels?! > Since when has this been a problem for AT? No, I'm not complaining--we own the channels, that's for sure. > On the other side, Fox > sells its products almost entirely on its reputation and word of > mouth. I can't even go into Egghead and buy a copy of FoxPro off the > shelf, but there are plenty of AT products there. If I weren't so busy fending off blows, I would agree with you that Fox has earned an enviable position in the hearts and minds of its customers. (A feeling of trust and respect which time can only diminish, in my opinion, but I'm being cynical again.) > You may be right that > "good products don't speak for themselves" - but GREAT ones do! Your > in a very competitive industry, and good is not enough. That's my point; we agree. Fox is great enough that they have established a loyal following, and they have made this industry much more competitive in the last few years (of course we helped by releasing 1.0 :-). Good is _not_ enough. But wait until FoxPro 2.0 or 3.0 ships with too many bugs (e.g. Clipper 5.0). Wait until Fox sues someone over its proposed Rushmore patent. Wait until Ashton-Tate delivers what we're developing now. The situation can change. > Superior products speak for themselves to those who are qualified to > judge the differences. What's this? All animals are created equal except for the pigs who are more equal than the others? Are you really saying that stupid people buy dBASE but smart ones don't and therefore dBASE is no good? > The developer community is a good barometer. > I know lots of people who have switched from dBase to Fox, Clipper, > and Paradox. I don't know of anyone that has switched from one of > these products to dBase, IV or otherwise. Yes, the developer community is a good barometer, but they're not the only barometer. The reason the previous management didn't coddle developers is that they represent such a small fraction of our market, like it or not. Even though they are influential, we still sell a lot of dBASEs to people who don't know any serious dBASE developers. As for your last assertion, you are ignoring mail in this newsgroup from people who are using dBASE IV because of its cross-platform compatibility, it's standardization and it's bureaucratic acceptability. I know people who've switched back, but I also know a few with stars in their eyes, too. > Unfortunately, I get the feeling > that you really believe the things that you state above. If that is > true there is no hope that AT can truly turn dBase around and make it > a product that is respected in the community. Gosh, if only I could have convinced you that I didn't believe these things, then we might have had a chance :-). Have a good life, Peter. /alastair/ -- |Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, |which does not monitor my outbursts here. I reserve all rights to my |opinions in terms of commercial endorsements.
awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr28.041636.7696@welch.jhu.edu>, glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) writes: > You guys at A-T really should not try to use netnews as a means of > spreading dBASE related propaganda. Not "us guys," just me. > Someone who works for A-T and owns > A-T stock posting second hand, negative comments about a competitors > product? That's just not cool. Anyone can own A-T stock; I'm not hiding my affiliations. I think if you re-read my posting, you'll see that the discussion of Paradox came up in response to a question about relative market share. I was explaining why Paradox's market share did not rise more quickly as ours fell. I think that answering technical questions about dBASE is a good thing, and that's why I'm here. Answering business questions such as market share is not as valuable to netland, but it's an interesting subject to me. Slamming competitors or spreading "dBASE related propaganda" is not why I'm here, and I'd be the first to criticize someone for doing it. However, I find myself fruitlessly defending against some fairly emotional attacks that are almost as inappropriate as propaganda from the competitors in question. > I'm not sure how you are > interpreting the followup postings, but from my viewpoint, you guys are > really taking a beating! Oh, goody! /alastair/ -- |Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, |which does not monitor my outbursts here. I reserve all rights to my |opinions in terms of commercial endorsements.
pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) (05/03/91)
In article <1991Apr30.210621.12574@dbase.a-t.com>, awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) writes: |> Peter, let's make a deal. I'll rebut your mail then you rebut mine and |> we'll call this off. You can have the last word. Ok, I'm really done anyway. I've smashed you enough and you have responded with good arguments. I'll just make a couple of brief comments. Don't hold back if you need to say anything. |> The press does not write unwarranted attacks; the stories were based on |> reports of problems with 1.0, which had more problems than most released |> software. However, the problems were few enough that the vast majority |> of users might never have found them. Still, you shouldn't ignore those people. People don't want to think that they might be the one that actually hits the bug. As a developer, stretching a piece of software to its limits, I know that I would hit these bugs eventually. Hitting a bug in your software is one of THE most frustrating things in life. I can't blame the press for being critical. |> Let me guess: you don't sell your software in the marketplace. I |> can tell because a) you seem to think that shipping upgrades to |> thousands of users is a trivial expense and b) you appear to believe |> that other commercial software companies behave differently. I know |> for a fact that at least one of our competitors adopts this policy |> when it suits them. As for A-T, we are trying to be more |> responsive. We shipped something like 300,000 free upgrades to 1.1-- |> ignoring our cost of goods, that's probably half a million dollars |> in postage. In addition, our new president, David Proctor, announced |> at 1.1's release that we will be shipping regular upgrades on a |> timely basis (1.2 is due for beta soon and 1.3 is in early planning). |> Isn't that "endearing," or can we do nothing right enough at this point? No I don't sell software the way you do. But I know it's a big expense to ship upgrades. However, I'm sure it's worth it to you in the long run. Tell your accountants to charge it to Good Will. From what you say above it's clear that AT's come around to this realization. This is a good policy, and I'm glad you've adopted it. If AT continues to display such responsiveness, you may be able to win back cynics such as myself. |> |> > ...I subsequently became disenchanted with dBase, |> > because there was no comparison. Foxbase was simply a far, far |> > superior product. |> |> I could not get away with arguing like this. I have a high opinion |> of Microsoft C, for example, over our current compiler. But if I |> went to my boss and told him I had become disenchanted and wanted |> him to buy a "far, far superior product," he would ask for facts. |> I couldn't get away with, "boss, there's no comparison." You're right, I'm not giving facts. I'm not going to dig up trade magazines and stuff just to back me up. Let me add IMHO to the above. Also, I work with plenty of developers and they all agree, so it just seems like general knowledge. |> |> I deleted your comment to the effect that not only is Fox faster, |> but it's more reliable, too, "as it should be." Have you done _any_ |> analysis to prove this reliability? Did you know that when dBASE |> appends a blank record, we write the record and update the number |> of records in the header. Fox postpones updating the header in |> order to run faster on benchmarks. However, if a power failure |> interrupts your session, your appended records will be lost with Fox. |> In general, I would think that greater reliability would tend |> to be slower, not faster, so I don't think your unsupported |> findings are "as they should be" at all. Okay, got me here. I was talking reliability in terms of bugs causing problems. I have no idea about each program's mechanisms for maintaining data integrity. |> |> > Does Fox Software ship products with bugs? Yes, all software |> > companies do. |> |> Ah, good, reality checks in. |> |> > But Fox always sends free upgrades to its customers. |> > They don't try to sweep things under the carpet to save a few bucks. |> > They realize that they will earn even more money by retaining the |> > respect of their customers. |> |> You don't know what things they have successfully swept under the carpet, |> and you don't know what upgrades they haven't sent. In general, |> however, Fox has excellent relations with its customers because |> they have acted sensitively and professionally. Ashton-Tate, on |> the other hand, has earned much of the abuse we have gotten. Fox ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is the reality that I see. Now you guys have to work extra hard to win us back. Your products and service has to be A+ now, not just A. |> has concentrated on winning over developers and their customers |> are very loyal. We have a broader constituency and it is harder |> to make everyone happy, but I admit we've made mistakes and we've |> been insensitive. I hope you'll give us a chance to improve your |> opinion of us. You have done much in your responses to improve my opinion of you. However, I am a developer, I like being catered to, and it will be very difficult to win me back with software that also must cater to a broader constituency. I think dBase has gotten too monstrous, 6 zillion disks in the box. I would like to see a lean, mean, robust developer's version and a soft, juicy non-developer's version. I think Foxbase/Pro and Alpha 4 work well together in this way (though FoxPro itself has gotten a lot friendlier for the everyday user). |> I'm curious about your view of the software industry. My view is that |> companies are pretty much the same because the same players move from |> place to place. Many Ashton-Tate people now work at Borland; we just |> hired an ex-Borland employee a few weeks ago. You seem to think that |> Fox walks on water and that the developers at Borland "know exactly |> what they have to provide" but that at Ashton-Tate we're just waiting |> for the life-support to be switched off. No, but at AT you are trying to service everyone with one huge product (see above). I just don't think it should be done that way. You must be at cross purposes at every development meeting. |> |> > Do the software reviewers give Paradox |> > consistently high marks, consistently much higher than dBase... |> |> Data Based Advisor, May, 1991, our ad, page 4-5: Software Digest |> Independent Comparative Ratings Report for Selecting IBM PC Business |> Software. dBASE IV 7.0 overall, no category under 5.0. No other |> product can say that. Paradox got a particularly low mark in the |> Performance category. Software Digest is like Consumer Reports; |> magazine reviewers are like Family Circle, in my opinion. |> I wouldn't buy a refrigerator based on a |> review in Family Circle. But I digress: What specific reviews are |> _you_ quoting, Peter? I must admit, I've been in school for the past year and haven't followed things that closely. Congratulations on the high marks. I'm going to have to go look at those tests... |> That's my point; we agree. Fox is great enough that they have |> established a loyal following, and they have made this industry much |> more competitive in the last few years (of course we helped by |> releasing 1.0 :-). Good is _not_ enough. But wait until FoxPro 2.0 |> or 3.0 ships with too many bugs (e.g. Clipper 5.0). Wait until |> Fox sues someone over its proposed Rushmore patent. Wait until |> Ashton-Tate delivers what we're developing now. The situation |> can change. Absolutely. |> |> > Superior products speak for themselves to those who are qualified to |> > judge the differences. |> |> What's this? All animals are created equal except for the pigs who |> are more equal than the others? Are you really saying that stupid |> people buy dBASE but smart ones don't and therefore dBASE is no good? Nope. But if I go into Egghead and ask for a powerful database, the sales person is going to point me to dBase. He probably doesn't know much about it, but it's the known product. He can feel fine recommending it, and since I, the customer, will probably recognize the name, the sale is that much easier. If I'm not a database expert, dBase IV will probably do what I want it to, and I'll be happy enough. |> |> > The developer community is a good barometer. |> > I know lots of people who have switched from dBase to Fox, Clipper, |> > and Paradox. I don't know of anyone that has switched from one of |> > these products to dBase, IV or otherwise. |> |> Yes, the developer community is a good barometer, but they're not |> the only barometer. The reason the previous management didn't |> coddle developers is that they represent such a small fraction of |> our market, like it or not. Even though they are influential, we |> still sell a lot of dBASEs to people who don't know any serious |> dBASE developers. Yes, you do sell to these people, but I would bet that they would be much happier with a product tailored for the non-developer, like Q & A or Alpha 4. Much of your sales (most?) are due to the fact that you are the market leader. Why are you the market leader? Because you were the first with a reasonably powerful database in the PC market. However, today is a different story. I think there are better products available for the everyday user, and I think there are better products available for the serious developer. I will give you cross-platform compatibility (see below), but that's a really small niche! |> As for your last assertion, you are ignoring |> mail in this newsgroup from people who are using dBASE IV because |> of its cross-platform compatibility, it's standardization and |> it's bureaucratic acceptability. I know people who've switched |> back, but I also know a few with stars in their eyes, too. |> I hate bureaucratic acceptability! It sells a lot of inferior products. Buying dBase and IBM is a no brainer for most bureaucrats. Nobody can fault Purchasing for making these decisions, buying the market leaders. You get a lot of humdrum products this way, however. It sounds like you guys *are* turning things around at AT. That's great, it can only make for better software for all of us. I am cynical about your products, there's no doubt about it. You cater to your constituency, which mostly isn't me, and then say that your product is right for me. That probably won't ever be the case until you develop a product that is targeted for me, not one that just keeps me in mind. I also think that the majority of your constituency would be better off with another product. I`ve seen plenty of people who are using the dot prompt but not doing any development. I think that's tragic! This sort of person should have Q & A or other basic database program, not dBase III (which management bought). They could move up to dBase IV and get menus, but they don't need all the other stuff packed in IV which is geared for developers. I'm sure this is not news to you, it's a problem you've been working with for years. You're first real crack at it, dBase IV 1.0 didn't go so well. I can't say much about 1.1, but I don't think the strategy is any different. Let's see what AT can do in the future. I'm sure you'll still be around. Okay, I'm done. Peter -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter E. Wagner (401)863-7685 pew@cs.brown.edu Department Computer Science Box 1910 pew@BROWNCS.BITNET Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 uunet!brunix!pew Woody Allen when asked if he thought sex was dirty; `If you do it right.' ----------------------------------------------------------------
dave@kharma (05/03/91)
awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) writes: > In article <1991Apr28.041636.7696@welch.jhu.edu>, glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn > > You guys at A-T really should not try to use netnews as a means of > > spreading dBASE related propaganda. > > > Someone who works for A-T and owns > > A-T stock posting second hand, negative comments about a competitors > > product? That's just not cool. > > I think that answering technical questions about dBASE is a good thing, > and that's why I'm here. Answering business questions such as market > share is not as valuable to netland, but it's an interesting subject > to me. Slamming competitors or spreading "dBASE related propaganda" > is not why I'm here, and I'd be the first to criticize someone for > doing it. However, I find myself fruitlessly defending against some > fairly emotional attacks that are almost as inappropriate as propaganda > from the competitors in question. > I, for one, am delighted to see A-T represented in what I perceive to be a free and open exchange of ideas and information. Were such an exchange not so attractive, I would definately resist operating a BBS. As to A-T, it works. <sigh> now if they would just come up with a razor sharp .EXE compiler.... |-) Thanks for listening! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - isc-br!tau-ceti!dogear!kharma!dave [dave@kharma] Dave Laird, SysOp: kharma The Computer Concern, Springdale, WA 258-7109 or 1-800-786-7109 kharma: 509-233-8474 (Local from Spokane Area) 24hrs 1200-14400 (HST)
dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) (05/03/91)
From: glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) >You guys at A-T really should not try to use netnews as a means of >spreading dBASE related propaganda. Someone who works for A-T and owns >A-T stock posting second hand, negative comments about a competitors >product? That's just not cool. It's not news. Posting negative comments about the competition may not be cool, but doing so to this forum is certainly subjecting the comment to the most critical set of readers in the universe. It's what makes reading such forums interesting. Dan Hepner
landers@zeus.mgmt.purdue.edu (Christopher Landers) (05/07/91)
In article <1991Apr30.224901.18001@dbase.a-t.com> awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) writes: > >I think that answering technical questions about dBASE is a good thing, >and that's why I'm here. Agreed. Please continue to do so. >Answering business questions such as market >share is not as valuable to netland, but it's an interesting subject >to me. OK, in moderation. >Slamming competitors or spreading "dBASE related propaganda" >is not why I'm here, and I'd be the first to criticize someone for >doing it. However, I find myself fruitlessly defending against some >fairly emotional attacks that are almost as inappropriate as propaganda >from the competitors in question. > >/alastair/ IMHO, Alastair, you've been doing more of the third item than the other two lately, and the least of the first. Yes, A-T has been attacked here lately, but in defending those attacks, you can still be guilty of "propaganda", perhaps without meaning to. Sometimes tone makes all the difference. HEY EVERYBODY, lets keep the discussion level headed, clean, honest, and knowledgeable. (But let's keep up the dBase language discussions!) -- <================================><===============================> || Christopher Landers || PURDUE UNIVERSITY - KRAN 708 || || Krannert Computing Center || West Lafayette, IN 47907 || <=================== landers@zeus.mgmt.purdue.edu ================>
landers@zeus.mgmt.purdue.edu (Christopher Landers) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May6.234504.24498@zeus.mgmt.purdue.edu> landers@zeus.mgmt.purdue.edu (Christopher Landers) writes: >In article <1991Apr30.224901.18001@dbase.a-t.com> awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) writes: >> >HEY EVERYBODY, lets keep the discussion level headed, clean, honest, >and knowledgeable. (But let's keep up the dBase language discussions!) > Is it rude to follow-up to my own posting? Anyway, I wanted to mention, Thanks to Alastair Dallas for taking the time to do what he does. While he and others have been flaming back and forth recently, Alastair DOES provide alot of GOOD info about dBase IV (even if it's a little biased :) Please keep it up, Alastair (your refering a poster to Clipper was about the most professional act I've ever seen on the net; very few people in the business world have the courage to refer a potential customer to a competitor when you can't deliver what he needs). I only wish some people from Microsoft paid 1/4 as much attention to comp.windows.ms as Alastair Dallas and Tom Leylan do to this group. (I also wish I could do more dBase programming, and less Windows support). Sigh.... -- <================================><===============================> || Christopher Landers || PURDUE UNIVERSITY - KRAN 708 || || Krannert Computing Center || West Lafayette, IN 47907 || <=================== landers@zeus.mgmt.purdue.edu ================>