|
Welcome to the COE Discussion Forum!
|
|
|
|
To participate in the discussion forum, you must be logged in to the website. If you forget your login information, please contact COE Headquarters at coe@coe.org or (800) 263-2255.
If you are new to the COE Discussion Forum and would like to participate, please register.
|
|
| Forum Highlight: CATIA V6 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
COE-FORUM-USER
 |
| 07 Jul 2002 03:23 PM |
|
> I am not forgetting the fact the 5% of the market could amount to 40 million
> potential users how many of the 40 million potential users would or could fork
> over the money for the licenses for using the functionality. It is not cheap.
Actually, it is pretty cheap. If you already have a UNIX based solution (that runs on X, KDE, etc.), then the cost is really to just bundle your software with the plug-ins (solutions) to get an install to work on OSX. That's pretty cheap entry...
If you want to get a fully OSX version of the App, then you need to do the interface; but you're using the best UNIX UI tools on the planet.
Now compare that to volume. Apple is the #1 UNIX supplier in units. So having it on UNIX and not on OSX makes very little sense. It is cheaper to make it work on OSX than other UNIXXEN, and it is a larger installed base.
The question shouldn't be why, but when.
> Have you ever asked why MicroSoft does not recode Flight Simulator for OS X?
> Same reason - Cost of coding for OS X.
Because Flight Simulator is not a UNIX App? So you are mistaken in what that means.
We could just as readily ask then why does Microsoft do Office or Outlook for the Mac, etc... Because it is a very profitable segment for them. In fact, THOSE apps required complete rewrites and were much more major development efforts than what we are talking about here (since they used the Mac API's)...
What we're talking about is a more vertical solution that can have more interface quirks, and use a lot more of the standard API's, and you already have 98% ported, assuming it already runs on UNIX. You do have to QA and support it -- but you could probably throw one programmer at it for a few months (if he's good). Heck, if you asked Apple, they'll probably make consulting resources available to help with the port...
Knowing software development costs, this is probably a low 6 figure effort at worst ($100K) to get you into the market -- you're probably going to have to make a few year commitment, and add some marketing, etc., that will easily increase that dramatically.
The potential upside seems staggering.
> This I can say comes from the head of the FS program at MS.
That was a vertical Windows program, that was hacked and cheesed up from the get go. Yes, if you have a game that has been a pet project of the CEO, and has been hacked for 20 years, then porting it to another platform might be expensive; both in development costs, and PR. But that is not what we're talking about...
>I think you may over simplify the recoding and
> recompiling efforts that a software developer goes through.
I've been a software engineer (cross platform) for 23 years, and I've managed many projects. So I have a pretty good clue as to what it does and doesn't take...
I haven't seen the size of the project... But I'm assuming you are already running on UNIX. In that case, the cost of a cheesy port is infinitesimal compared to a Windows or normal port to another platform. And since you are a vertical app, there is far more tolerance of bad (see normal UNIX) interface. If you are generating revenues from that port, you can use those monies to increase your effort (staff) and put a better UI on things.
> Can you take a graphic card designed for a
> PC and use it as is in a MAC? I think not.
Actually, you can. Many were done exactly that way. Many choose to customize it more... And a bad design can't be used cross platform. And most often, you can use 99% of the design, and the redevelopment efforts are small...
> Don't get me wrong I think that if
> CATIA was changed to run under OS X (Unix) it would give other Unix boxes a
> run for the money.
I think that OSX is already the unit leader, but other UNIX people are learning that it is already the interface leader as well. And this is 12 months out of the gate. Jaguar looks to fix/improve many things... And in another 12-18 months, I think it will be the standard by which most UNIXXES are measured... OSX delivers today on what LINUX has been promising for 10 years...
> Find a industry that is willing to put the
> money be hide the effort and I would think that DS would have to consider the
> OS X because their customers are requesting it.
The problem is the other way... DS is missing an opportunity and losing potential customers because they CAN'T offer that option. (Or because there are better options). They are telling their customers to demand that they do their jobs (which is create good software)? That makes no sense...
Show me the customers that demanded a spreadsheet before Bricklin created Visicalc? Show me the customers that demanded a GUI before Apple delivered the MacOS? It doesn't work that way. And if you found both people asking for it, it would NEVER justify the expense. But when you offered the solution, you find that there are 1,000 that want it, and you just didn't know about it. And that the software created opportunities and brought you into new markets, etc.... Just like this would. But if you never take the risks, then you will never see the rewards.
> Even AutoCAD only offers their product for Intel based systems.
True. They created a Mac product, and mismanaged it, and then stopped selling it. And they lost many customers, and now there's a new market for other CAD solutions (Vellum, etc.) that AutoCAD will never get back; and many others that were burned and will never buy another AutoCAD product because of what the company did.
But just because one company does a stupid thing, doesn't mean we should all try to emulate it. Does it?
> Apple has to
> this point not shown from the user base to be CATIA needy. That may change but
> DS wont just code it hoping they will come. Would You?
That's the job of software companies; create solutions to gain new markets. If you stop innovating, then you are stagnant and just waiting to be obviated by someone with more a clue (more vision) than you have.
When you port to other platforms, and gain new customers, they give you insights into new features or ways of thinking that help your entire market. This is one of the reasons why Microsoft keeps their Mac products; it makes their Windows versions BETTER. In fact, if I wasn't for the Mac products, I don't think most of the Windows apps would have been nearly as big. (Heck, most were Mac first).
> Would Goodyear develop
> a 33-inch tire without the truck manufacturing industry driving the need for
> such a thing?
This is not hardware, this is software, there is a difference. But still Goodyear does exactly that -- they go to automakers and show them some prototype designs to guage interest, and the automakers showed interest. They do the same to customers. You either innovate, or you stagnate. Almost all the dead ex-large companies can trace their downfalls at least partly to that "it costs to much to risk innovation" attitude.
Author: David K. Every |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 10 Jul 2002 08:30 PM |
|
Well, it appears that David Every has provided an argument for apps (CATIA in this case) to migrate to OS X. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
--
Ed
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 15 Jul 2002 03:23 PM |
|
Well I have found a business case that has been documented in a format that I think you might be able to work with.
12 Jul 2002 - Autocad on Mac OS X Update Report - OS X version worth approx. $55 Million to AutoDesk
http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-07/2002a1-0711-axad-ox1.phtml
Once again this would need to be done by thoughts that would at a company level or group of uses to drive an opportunity to have CATIA on MAC OSX. Architosh has been working for two and a half year to get AutoDesk to market AutoCAD on MAC OSX. Here is an example of the figures that would need to be worked up in order to get in front of DS will a serous proposal.
http://www.macevangelist.com/home/petitions/autocad/index.html
Similar work would need to be done to bring DS to the same point. I will note that AutoDesk made no firm commitments to this development that I could fined in the article.
Instead of saying Develop it and they will come develop a business proposal and convince the DS of the customer base. Attend CATIA Training and see what CATIA is like. Go to the national conference and get involved in making the tools better. These build value in you effort. These things are considered good for business.
Author: Timothy J. Suhr |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 18 Jul 2002 07:44 AM |
|
Mr. Suhr,
After discussing this topic with a colleague it would seem that you are missing the point with respect to what John Welch and Dave Every are attempting to convey.
First and foremost, *customers* shouldn't have to make these decisions for the company. This job lies squarely on the shoulders of the organization. You mention the AutoCAD petition articles that my friend Anthony has been running for over 2 years now. They are in fact pretty thorough; however, I suggest that you look at it from a different angle.
Instead of looking at it as a potential return-on-investment, look at it as loosing big $$ in a potential market. In the case of Autodesk we can look at it as $55 million dollar blunder that allowed them to loose an entirely NEW (and growing) market. In effect NOT porting to OS X or the Mac) cost them.
My colleague also pointed out that had Autodesk invested the necessary resources to port to OS X (maybe $5M max) their return on investment would have amounted to OVER 5x!! You'll be hard pressed to find another business that can provide over 5x return-on-investment. And 5 million is highballing the figure since most of the code is already written.
To get directly to the point, my colleague (a very SMART man) says in short that "AutoCAD has blown it, and people are demonstrating how, and now what? That customers should show the same thing to CATIA or SolidWorks? (And porting costs should be less, since there is already UNIX versions, etc.)... "
Sorry Mr. Suhr, this makes perfect sense and is an accurate way to look at it. It reinforces my previous arguments and tends to raise questions of the role of politics within the company (DS) regarding such decisions. In short, DS is missing all the benefits that crossplatform development would award them.
Dave Every mentioned that crossplatform development offers you significantly better code and more robust features, but the Mac shouldn't be viewed as just "the other platform"
A significant point that is often overlooked is the fact that there is in fact a "crossplatform market". For instance, you cold look at it as three (or more) separate markets... The Mac market, the PC market and the crossplatform market (the Mac+PC market). That is the Mac+PC markets are markets where organizations use BOTH Mac *and* PC. So, If you support one platform (either one), you are actually missing TWO markets. 1. the other platform AND 2. the cross platform market. This indicates that ANY revenue generated from sales of supporting another platform (in this case Mac OS X/Unix) will also draw revenue from the *combined* market as well. How can you (or rather DS) not see the potential benefits? I alluded to the *polotics* earlier. Either it's that or a simple oversight on the part of DS. There are other cost savings as well...
Historically, it's been *well* documented that it costs developers less to support the Mac than it does the PC. That means for every customer you convert to the Mac version you get a complete upgrade that you might not have sold (or at the very least a "competitive" upgrade, but the additional cost savings associated with supporting the Mac will provide additional revenue in the form of savings. Again, just another way to look at it. Most people and organizations only care to look at it from a single angle (narrow minded and shortsighted). Perhaps you could bring these things up in your meetings with DS. I'm sure they will consider these arguments. Pass along the whole topic discussion and see if anyone from the company is willing to provide feedback and clarification. Oh, and just so you know... Alias|Wavefront grew their Maya market 25% by deciding to support the Macintosh OS X platform. This should open some eyes over at DS, no?
Best
--
Ed M
PS Have you read the arguments put forth by John Welch and Dave Every?
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 23 Jul 2002 06:55 AM |
|
[[[Take it easy, don't spend your time to argue.]]]
No one is arguing. Tim asked me to *make a case* for CATIA or other DS products on the Mac. I've made several. He's yet to reply to either me, Dave Every or John C. Welch.
[[[No one here take repsonse cause for me is just a Mac OS salesman try to sell something out.]]]
Salesman? Hardly. I neither work for Apple nor an independent promotions company. I have no vested interest in Apple other than to see that the best technology is available for people who require nothing less than the best. If you get some time you should really research the company (Apple). I think you're a little behind the times.
Oh, and don't forget the fact that Alias|Wavefront's business grew 25% because of the port to Mac OS X!
Conversely, you could say that Autodesk blew a $55-million opportunity to grow and expand. What *new* markets are *they* getting into? Hmmmm.
[[[I do not think I will buy CATIA because CATIA support MAC OS X. ]]]
Are you from the United States? I'm just curious. Anyway, that's HARDLY a case against the project. Just because *you* might not opt for it doesn't imply that others won't.
Sometimes people *really do* want the better technology and tools to do their jobs -- Often they want options *other than* Windows... I could go on, but I think a solid case has been built -- with solid reasoning. None of our points have been disputed. I'm still waiting for a reply to my *previous* post. As are John and Dave I'm sure.
--
Ed M.
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 08:49 AM |
|
Ed M. Do ya think PTC is taking its last stab at trying to stay alive? I think because PTC is doing it, DS shouldn't do it. Do you follow the CAD market at all or just OS X? Who do you think is making the right decision, DS's Market cap is almost 4X larger then PTC? PTC is only making money on Wind-chill; their Cad package hasn't made money in years.
Hey Ed, can you tell me a couple large companies (i.e. Boeing, Daimler Chrysler, Volvo, etc) that use PTC? So do you think major manufacturing company's pick their CAD system because of what platform they run on or the one which will save the company the most money? And do you think any Large DS customers would switch to PTC because they are ported to OS X? I guess DS is probably thinking, "why should we change anything when we rule the CAD world. I bet DS doesn't even feel PTC is a major competitor any more. PTC's stock is down almost 70% this year. DS's stock is trading at 10X PTC's. WHO IS MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS?
Author: Mike |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 09:11 AM |
|
And I think that quote applies here...
[[[What platform they run on or the one which will save the company the most money?]]]
Windows/Microsoft save you money? LINUX and x86 save you money?
You have to be joking.
[[[And do you think any Large DS customers would switch to PTC because they are ported to OS X? ]]]
You missed the point completely. I'm not suggesting that anyone switch applications at all. Where did I imply that?
[[[I guess DS is probably thinking, "why should we change anything when we rule the CAD world. ]]]
Then you should go back and read what Dave Every wrote. OS X is coming and in a BIG way.
[[[I bet DS doesn't even feel PTC is a major competitor any more. ]]]
*Sigh* I was using it as a reference to show that companies that were once blindly married to a specific platform for reasons that even they couldn't explain are now considering making the switch or "addition".
You say that PTC is dying, but at least they are making an effort to expand their market. DS has the same opportunity, How do you explain Alias|Wavefront and Maya business growing over 25%?
[[[DS's stock is trading at 10X PTC's. WHO IS MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS?]]]
That depends on who's pulling who's strings... My answer would be *Micro$oft*, but I really don't want to get into a debate on this one, so lets keep it pertinent to the topic in hand. BTW, did you read *any* of the other posts?
--
Ed
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 09:23 AM |
|
And I think that quote is starting to apply here...
So, is it wise for DS to increasingly *bind* themselves to a single, proprietary platform running MS-Windows (it seem to be the direction they are headed) or would it be wiser for them to diversify?
[[[What platform they run on or the one which will save the company the most money?]]]
Windows/Microsoft save you money? LINUX and x86 save you money? How much do you suppose they save these companies?
You have to be joking.
[[[And do you think any Large DS customers would switch to PTC because they are ported to OS X? ]]]
You missed the point completely. I'm not suggesting that anyone switch applications at all. Where did I imply that?
[[[I guess DS is probably thinking, "why should we change anything when we rule the CAD world. ]]]
Then you should go back and read what Dave Every wrote. OS X is coming and in a BIG way.
[[[I bet DS doesn't even feel PTC is a major competitor any more. ]]]
*Sigh* I was using it as a reference to show that companies that were once blindly married to a specific platform for reason that even they couldn't explain are now considering making the switch. You say that PTC is dying, but at least they are making an effort to expand their market. DS has the same opportunity, How do you explain Alias|Wavefront and Maya business growing over 25%?
[[[DS's stock is trading at 10X PTC's. WHO IS MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS?]]]
That depends on who's pulling who's strings... I really don't want to get into a debate on this one, so lets keep it pertinent to the topic in hand. BTW, did you read *any* of the other posts?
--
Ed
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 09:23 AM |
|
"Some companies only exist as an example to others on what not to do." - DKE
And I think that quote is starting to apply here...
So, is it wise for DS to increasingly *bind* themselves to a single, proprietary platform running MS-Windows (it seem to be the direction they are headed) or would it be wiser for them to diversify?
[[[What platform they run on or the one which will save the company the most money?]]]
Windows/Microsoft save you money? LINUX and x86 save you money? How much do you suppose they save these companies?
You have to be joking.
[[[And do you think any Large DS customers would switch to PTC because they are ported to OS X? ]]]
You missed the point completely. I'm not suggesting that anyone switch applications at all. Where did I imply that?
[[[I guess DS is probably thinking, "why should we change anything when we rule the CAD world. ]]]
Then you should go back and read what Dave Every wrote. OS X is coming and in a BIG way.
[[[I bet DS doesn't even feel PTC is a major competitor any more. ]]]
*Sigh* I was using it as a reference to show that companies that were once blindly married to a specific platform for reason that even they couldn't explain are now considering making the switch. You say that PTC is dying, but at least they are making an effort to expand their market. DS has the same opportunity, How do you explain Alias|Wavefront and Maya business growing over 25%?
[[[DS's stock is trading at 10X PTC's. WHO IS MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS?]]]
That depends on who's pulling who's strings... I really don't want to get into a debate on this one, so lets keep it pertinent to the topic in hand. BTW, did you read *any* of the other posts?
--
Ed
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 09:52 AM |
|
[[ I guess DS is probably thinking, "why should we change anything when we rule the CAD world. I bet DS doesn't even feel PTC is a major competitor any more.]]
Every company that is not paranoid about their markets, and thus stops trying to innovate (and penetrate new markets) in order to maximize profits of the now, sells their future for the present. This short-term quarterly report thinking is what has allowed not only companies but whole industries to be eaten alive.
Some of these companies do survive. They go into innovation through acquisition mode; and can sometimes acquire fast enough to tread water or break even. (Or at least slow the innevetible descent into oblivion). Most go under, or become pathetic shadows of they once were, and shameful embarassments compared to their potential.
So, DS rules the CAD market now, but are laying the foundation for their own replacement. New platforms coming up are ignored, by them, but not their competition. They are entrenched in their current market and profit taking, and so are missing out on many opportunities that their competition isn't. Let's not learn the lessons of Novell, Lotus, DEC, Wang, DataGeneral, Packard Bell, and so on. Let's mimic them, because many of them were profitable, in the short term, right before they focused on the now (too long) and let the competition pass them by, and they disappeared.
Author: David K. Every |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 10:37 AM |
|
[[Every company that is not paranoid about their markets, and thus stops trying to innovate (and penetrate new markets) in order to maximize profits of the
now, sells their future for the present. This short-term quarterly report thinking is what has allowed not only companies but whole industries to be eaten alive. ]]
Well we are talking about the French, I have never met a French man that is paranoid, but I have met lots that are confident. If you think DS is thinking short-term then you might want to look back at the history of DS and you might read a little on what they are doing for the future of manufacturing.
Did you know that DS invests 30% into R&D and PMTC 10%? I would rather see DS invest money in R&D for the tools rather then developing the product for yet another platform.
Author: Mike |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 12:02 PM |
|
[[[I would rather see DS invest money in R&D for the tools rather then developing the product for yet another platform. ]]]
You'll have to explain the "yet another platform" comment. Don't you think the product is mature enough, robust enough to migrate to other platforms? Someone at DS must have thought migrating to other platforms was a worthwhile endeavor since it's now available for Windows. Still, why would DS begin to defacto-standardize on Windows when their roots clearly show they were immersed in UNIX?
Just out of curiosity, What year did DS start to support the Windows platform? And did you say the same thing when DS pumped R&D $$ into the Windows version? Did you stand up and say to DS that you'd rather see them invest their R&D into their tools rather than port to "yet another platform" (i.e., Windows)?
I don't understand your reasoning. Windows was a COMPLETE detachment from what DS was familiar with, yet they seemed to get the port done rather quickly, no? OS X can bring them back to that familiarity and their roots.
Similarly, I'm guessing that since OS X is a UNIX variant, it will take them a lot further and allow them greater flexibility since their knowledge and experience developing for UNIX *must* far surpass their knowledge and experience developing for Windows.
What were the 5 main reasons DS decided to develop a Windows version? Do you suppose *any* of those reasons could be used to justify a Mac OS X version?
--
Ed M.
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 01:51 PM |
|
[[Just out of curiosity, What year did DS start to support the Windows platform? ]]
around 98-99
[[I don't understand your reasoning. Windows was a COMPLETE detachment from what DS was familiar with, yet they seemed to get the port done rather
quickly, no?]]
No!! They didn't get the port done quickly because it wasn't ported to windows. CATIA V4 runs on Unix and CATIA V5 runs on windows and they port it back to Unix.
[[What were the 5 main reasons DS decided to develop a Windows version? Do you suppose *any* of those reasons could be used to justify a Mac OS X
version?]]
I would say that the number one reason was because the market demanded it. So your next question is "then we are requesting it to be ported to OS X". My answer is - obviously the people that spend the money and the people that advise those people what the best tools are don't see it the same way that you do.
Author: Mike |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 03:30 PM |
|
> I will say during the last CATIA Operators
> Exchange the question was asked about a LINUX
> version and who wanted one and the response was
> not very encouraging. Apple MAC & OS X pose a
> greater question to the software developers -
> namely "Does the investment justify the return."
> Most engineering houses use UNIX or Intel based
> computers for their CAD Solutions. The task
> related to recoding many platforms and operating
> systems needs to justify it self. Can the OS X
> followers show a great enough demand to justify
> this investment?
Since OS X is now another (POSIX-compliant) UNIX variant, and lives comfortably amongst UNIX networks, isn't the above a good argument for a generic UNIX port? One which would then also run on OS X? Many large scale UNIX packages (not merely the GIMP, but real computational physics applications, etc) run on OS X. One need not make an Aqua-compliant version, since XFree86 is already widely used on OS X. That being said, wrapping UNIX apps in an Aqua interface is a relatively small programming task. As well, Tk is now an Aqua interface option.
As well, Mac users are willing to spend money on real products (they have a higher percentage of actually buying products they use per capita). Many companies would like the option of using a Mac for more than their graphics departments.
I worked at an engineering firm for years which was almost exclusively Windows-based. Still, there were engineers who use only Macs for their work. They use CAD/CAM and other FEA packages. Having the option of something like CATIA would be very welcomed. Don't ask the managers whether or not there's a demand for an OS X version, ask the engineers, many of whom are OS X users. Unfortunately, few engineers are actually asked what they would like to see in practice.
If the code is written to be platform agnostic (as many professional UNIX apps are), this could provide a CATIA port for LINUX/OS X/Solaris/BSD/etc all on a single code base.
Some food for thought.
Author: mr ed |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 03:59 PM |
|
[[I will say during the last CATIA Operators Exchange the question was asked about a LINUX version and who wanted one and the response was not very encouraging. Apple MAC & OS X pose a greater question to the software developers - namely "Does the investment justify the return." Most engineering houses use UNIX or Intel based computers for their CAD Solutions. The task related to recoding many platforms and operating systems needs to justify it self. Can the OS X followers show a great enough demand to justify this investment? ]]
Since OS X is now another (POSIX-compliant) UNIX variant, and lives comfortably amongst UNIX networks, isn't the above a good argument for a generic UNIX port? One which would then also run on OS X? Many large scale UNIX packages (not merely the GIMP, but real computational physics applications, etc) run on OS X. One need not make an Aqua-compliant version, since XFree86 is already widely used on OS X. That being said, wrapping UNIX apps in an Aqua interface is a relatively small programming task. As well, Tk is now an Aqua interface option.
I worked at an engineering firm for years which was almost exclusively Windows-based. Still, there were engineers who use only Macs for their work. They use CAD/CAM and other FEA packages. Having the option of something like CATIA would be very welcomed. Don't ask the managers whether or not there's a demand for an OS X version, ask the engineers, many of whom are OS X users. Unfortunately, few engineers are actually asked what they would like to see in practice.
If the code is written to be platform agnostic (as many professional UNIX apps are), this could provide a CATIA port for LINUX/OS X/Solaris/BSD/etc all on a single code base.
Just some thoughts on the issue.
Author: Jeff |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 04:15 PM |
|
[[Did you know that DS invests 30% into R&D and PMTC 10%? ]]]
The percentage isn't as important as how wisely it is spent.
I tend to think that if they ignore the #2 OS, and the #1 UNIX OS, and the fastest growing OS (and UNIX OS), then they are not exactly being wise or planning for the future.
And you have to remember, ignoring that trend means more problems not only for Mac market, but also for all organizations that are mixed environments.
[[I would rather see DS invest money in R&D for the tools rather then developing the product for yet another platform. ]]
The tools are the platform. If they don't support my platform, then they are not supporting me (as I would like). This means that they will either drive customers to competing products (and as you know it is 10 times harder to get someone back once they've learned something else), or they will be telling me that my concerns don't matter to them (generating bad will). Neither is good business.
"Yet another platform" that is bigger than all but Windows (and has a few million seats). It seems like they should choose their platforms to reflect market trends, don't you think?
Author: David K. Every |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 05:59 PM |
|
You win, I can see why you work for mac, you are very good at making excuse and reasons why you arn't number 1.
Author: Mike |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 06:21 PM |
|
[[You win, I can see why you work for mac, you are very good at making excuse and reasons why you arn't number 1. ]]
Interesting, to make that many mistakes in one sentence:
1) I didn't "win" anything. The only potential here is for you (and others) to lose. (Lose an opportunity to learn something). And based on your reply, I'm guessing that you did that.
2) I don't work for "mac". In fact no one does. Many work for Apple. But I don't work for them either.
3) I hadn't made any excuses, especially on wether Apple (or myself), isn't #1. That wasn't even vaguely in any of my points.
My only points were that it is a good idea for companies to pay attention to their markets and customers. It seems like they are supporting UNIX, but failing to support the #1 UNIX. That doesn't make much business sense to me.
Author: David K. Every |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 01 Aug 2002 06:29 PM |
|
[[[You win, I can see why you work for mac]]]
Who is mac? Do you even know what you are talking about?
There is no one on the forum topic that is employed by Apple Computer.
[[[you are very good at making excuse and reasons why you arn't number 1.]]]
You need to get a grip. It's not about winning. I suppose you eat all your meals at McDonnald's?
Anyway, It's about allowing DS to grow and expand into other markets where BOTH companies will benefit. IAs smart as you think you are you don't seem to get it.
The people that have posted here in favor of Mac OS X have provided a solid reasoning for a great app to be ported to a solid platform.
The entire reason for this post is to spark interest and curiosity in OS X. Instead of talking down about it and making excuses why something can't or shouldn't be ported to it, why don't you do yourself a favor and research it a little bit. You might be surprised. It's way ahead of XP in my opinion and I work with both platforms.
--
Ed M.
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 07 Aug 2002 04:45 PM |
|
So I was wondering why, if the CAD, Mac market is so good, why Autocad doesn't "STILL" play there? You would think that if it was such a big market that autodesk being the only major cad software that "did" run on Mac that they would continue playing. Why would they throw $55,000,000. away?
Author: bob |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
|
|