Hi, Michael
Well, I read some disturbing article from the Usenet, and I thought I should ask you first, and those are following...........
> In article <31EEDE29.2FD1@airmail.net>, Fred R. <farbodr@airmail.net> wrote:
> >Clifford Soderback wrote:
> >
> >> Borland got a bad name with developers over their incompatability
> >> with Windows. This killed the sales of their Delphi product.
> >
> >This is probably the most ignorant statement I've seen here for a long time.
> >Borland had the first C++ compiler for windows that actually ran in windows ( almost two yearsbefore M$).
> >
> >>
> >> They once had a lock on the Database market with Paradox and their
> >> puchase of Ashton-Tate(Dbase). The big mistake was Kahns sending
> >> Paradox for Windows overseas for cheap coding, then trying to ram
> >> it down the throats of the users and the bungling of the re-coding
> >> of Dbase to Windows. This eventially lost him his job as Pres.
> >>
> >>
> >> Last time I looked the stock was about $6.00, with recent
> >> earnings that too might be high.
> >
> >This is the first bad qtr after 4 profitable one?Nope! Two bad qtrs after three profitable ones. The profit in the last qtr
> was an accounting gymmick. They deliberately carried the sale of one of
> their products into that quarter so that they can show profit. Without that
> their true earnings are a loss of 2c.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >There are major problems with their software and/or new products/releases are beingdelayed due to
> >>problems.
> >>
> >> This is typical when Co.'s get in trouble.
> >>
> >> Borland got a bad name with developers over their incompatability
> >> with Windows. This killed the sales of their Delphi product.
> >>
> >
> >You obviously have never seen or used Delphi. Delphi is the best selling development tool afterVisualBasic
> >and VisualBasic has been on the market much longer than Delphi.
> >Please get your facts streight.
> >
> >> Note: A few years ago I bought BORL at 15 and sold at 78 with a
> >> very nice profit.
> >
> >So did I.
> >
> >FredR.
>
> In article <4sn1pk$uc@quasar.dimensional.com>,
> Harry Langford <musashi@mail.dimensional.com> wrote:
> >Fred R. (farbodr@airmail.net) wrote:
> >: Clifford Soderback wrote:
> >:
> >: > Borland got a bad name with developers over their incompatability
> >: > with Windows. This killed the sales of their Delphi product.
> >:
> >: This is probably the most ignorant statement I've seen here for a long time.
> >: Borland had the first C++ compiler for windows that actually ran in windows ( almost two yearsbefore M$).
> Probably true. The incompatability is not with Windows, but OWL. OWL 2.0 is
> incompatible with their OWL1.0. You can imagine how frustrating it would be to
> rewrite an entire product because Borland did not care about backward
> compatability.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree. I wasn't going to bother answering,
> > but...
> >
> > Delphi sales have been extremely good. What
> > killed sales of their Delphi *2.0* product is
> > simply that a large number of developers (us
> > included, at the moment) have no pressing need
> > to switch to Win95/NT development yet.
> >
> > A cursory review of the "CEO resigns" thread
> > in the Delphi newsgroup supports this view.
> >
> >
> >: You obviously have never seen or used Delphi. Delphi is the best selling development toolafter VisualBasic
> >: and VisualBasic has been on the market much longer than Delphi.
> >
> >: Please get your facts streight.Even with the second best selling development tool, their financials are worse
> than without it a year ago!! In my openion, Delphi did not break into
> corporate world, the way powerbuilder and Visual Basis did. The numbers they
> show are for desktop version of Delphi, which there is not enough margin. I
> would like to see a comparision of their sales of professional Delphi Vs.
> Power Builder vs Visual Basis (Enterprise).
> In the coming days, they are going to have more competition. Optima++ is
> showing promise. Recent comparision has put Oracle's developer 2000
> above Delphi, and you know Oracle is the Microsoft of the database world.
> On a final note Borland did a great mistake by choosing Object Pascal as
> underlying language. They should have chosen C++.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, please.
> >
> >
>
> On 19 Jul 1996 06:09:55 GMT, Don <don@mail.datadepot.com> wrote:
>
> > Delphi has yet to catch on in the Corporate market because it is
> > new and different, not because it is in any sense deficient.
>
> Although I agree that Delphi is not deficient, I don't agree that it
> has not caught on.
>
> In a conference call last week, David Mullin (VP and CFO of Borland)
> announced that they "have now sold 450,000 units of the Delphi product
> line establishing it as a product leader, second only to Visual
> Basic".
>
> If you're trying to say that there's a lot more potential out there
> for it, I agree completely.
>
> They are beginning to aggressively market Delphi as a complementary
> tool to C++ users, VB users, and Paradox and other database users. I
> think they'll see tremendous success out of this campaign.
>
> Borland Stockholder,
>
> - Michael Coley
> i1.net
> mailto:mcoley@i1.net |
