Paul. I agree 100% a professional software company, E, should not
charge 1cent to license holders for genuine bug fixes and should
package free releases independantly of feature releases until they are
fixed. Otherwise they are not professional anything
When I pay my plumber to fix a leak. I don't expect to have to pay him
to fix the new secondary leaks he caused by being a bad plumber
Sent from my iPhone
On 19/09/2009, at 1:09 PM, Paul A Norman <paul.a.nor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear Richard,
" I however, am a professional software developer."
I am sure that you are, infact from everything I have heard of you
and your work people should seriously consider looking at you and
your consultancy
for any work espeically in areas of complexity that need special
expertise in advanced programing.
What I am trying to address here is the changed busines model that
the Delphi Community is being asked to swallow hook line and
sinker. It is true as you say that E need to make money. What we
and they are needing to look at is the model by which they wish to
do so, realizing that we are their cash cows!
Now what is a "profesional programmer", just one who receives their
income by invoicing directly for progranmming work?
I beleive that it includes any one who due to their vocation or
occupation needs to use programing as ancillory part of what they do
and includes even those of us who do not invoice directly for the
work. I infact never invoice for what we do at all. in any way
I think it has been resaonibly well established here already that
Borland's problem was not its busines model, but project focuss.
A friend at Victoria University once explained to me that there were
until recently two main business models at work in the world.
The British and the American styles, (USA - not Latin American as
Latin American approaches are often very close to the NZ/Aussi way
of thinking).
Now in New Zealand the main Telecommunications cell phone provider
chose to follow the USA model.
People felt too screwed down and not looked after and when a British
based firrm entered the market hundeds of thousands of us transfered
over.
My friend explained that the genreal USA model is to offer the world
and then put blockages in the way of people getting the prize - the
classic USA Insurance comany type reputation best exemplifies this.
All that they (USA) followed in this regard has not really served
the American people or American busines community well,
obviously - witness the recent melt downs and the issues they need
to face and to sort it out longterm.
And a lot of that comes back to these basics that we are speaking of.
The British approach is to offer good service and backup and
genrally keep to it even if it hurts the balance sheet temporarily.
Reputation being important.
Trusting that customer loyalty will be built and longterm
profitablilty assured.
And I think that that is the ethos that many NZ programmers feel to
follow themselves.
So natrually we look for it in our Software House(s).
And it was found with Delphi and the genreal policies that surround
it. Remember that did not fail Delphi -- loosing focus of us
developers and the tolls we need fowled Borland
- hopefully E and its agents like you can learn from that.
Now obviously Dlephi in E's hands has a good future if we consumers
of it feel that our frends and associates **all over the world**
will get a British type back up then we will "for free"
promote the product as we all use to.
But in the absence of such deep felt assurance, look where the
discusion has gone on this thread. No longer about Delphi so much
but other languages.
Now I still maintain that it is not right for people to have to
expect that the eighteen monnth cycle that you speak of is
incorporating the bug fixes that should be for free.
Often I dont need new IDE features - just the last one to work
properly.
Why shuold I have to pay what you say is 500 - 600 but it is pointed
out is $750 just to get bus fixes on the last thing I paid 700 -800
depending on exchange rates?
If E are going to effectively be removing upgrade rights, then they
need to provide full on bug fixes for products with out people
NEEDING to upgrade just to get the IDE working properly.
To let that notion that has been floated here, slip pass would be
silly for us as consumerers.
I have raised my experience as a real example of things and yet
hope for a good result that might genuinely encourage others.
Paul
2009/9/16 Richard Vowles <rich...@developers-inc.co.nz>
2009/9/16 Paul A Norman <paul.a.nor...@gmail.com>
And I have heard nothing until Richard in this Forum smirked last
night was I actually using 2005?
So is that the level of support and followup we can expect?
That was quite rude Paul.
Paul, I am not, and have never been the reason you continue to use
Delphi 2005. I am also not responsible for the quality of Delphi
2005 and given most people downgraded back to Delphi 7, find it
hugely surprising you continue to use Delphi 2005. IMHO, Borland was
responsible for Delphi 2005, CodeGear and Embarcadero have
apologised enough for this version and have spent considerable time,
money and effort to make subsequent versions that they actually own
and are responsible for the best quality releases we have seen in a
long time. But they are a business and need to make money. It is
time to move on. I pay for my development tools and continue to
invest in them - they are part of what I do to make myself a better
developer and produce code more effectively for my customers. Tools,
like time, training and all other effort is something you invest in
IMHO, and if you feel the time you spend with a less than effective
tool is worth more than the cost of upgrading to a product owned by
a completely different, there is little I feel the need to do about
it.
I'm afraid $500-600 every 18 months for a new version of a Delphi
Pro which provides such incredible value would be the least of my
decision making points. Given I could delay that under current
upgrade policy for years and still pay the same amount for an even
greater jump in productivity and capability makes the cost of the
upgrade, in my opinion, a no brainer. I however, am a professional
software developer.
Richard
--
---
Richard Vowles, Technical Advisor
Developers Inc Ltd
web. http://www.developers-inc.co.nz
ph. +64-9-3600231, mob. +64-275-467747, fax. +64-9-3600384
skype. rvowles, LinkedIn, Twitter
_______________________________________________
NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz
Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with
Subject: unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz
Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with
Subject: unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz
Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject:
unsubscribe
