|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Compressed Terrain Data |
| Date: |
01/07/2003 11:20:56 AM |
| From: |
Dimitri Rotow |
|
|
> partner of manifold, me being a software vendor. I do take umbrage to the
> broad and sweeping potshots taken at software other than his own. I've
Karen,
Please give me an example of "broad and sweeping potshots" I've taken that
are not accurate. For example, observing that the prices charged for the
value delivered by legacy GIS companies are a total ripoff compared to those
charged by vendors in mass markets is certainly "broad and sweeping" but
because of the absolute accuracy and relevancy of the observation is not a
"potshot."
Are you referring to my comment that LizardTech laid off half their staff?
Far from being "broad and sweeping" I would think that is a fairly specific
comment. I think it also brings up a highly relevant observation to the
discussion of a proposed new proprietary format for public data, that
committing to a proprietary data format for public data brings public
agencies into the position of taking sides in private business speculation
and that people taking very closed approaches risk a backlash. That doesn't
mean closed approaches always fail, but it would be foolish to ignore a
specific example of catastrophic business contraction that is directly
relevant to the business of compressed data formats.
It would have been more relevant to the thread if you had analyzed why or
why not LizardTech's decision to shoot half of their employees in the head
(figuratively speaking... if you've ever been laid off like this you know it
is a real blow) had anything to do with their business practises, such as
suing a more nimble competitor rather than putting the money into doing a
better job for their customers, and whether or not their contraction was or
was not something that might guide the decision to introduce yet another
proprietary compressed data format. What is your analysis in that regard?
> never said that manifold is not good software but that doesn't
> mean it's the
> only good software, nor is it the only software company that's responsive.
> When software packages have literally millions of users, vendors must make
> decisions about which new features to implement. When your users
> number in
> the hundreds or thousands, it's a heck of a lot easier to add all of their
> requests.
>
> Unfounded attacks and speculation on software vendors only serve
> to confuse
> issues and spread rumors.
>
Well, now there's an unfounded attack and speculation on your part that you
are using to confuse issues and spread rumors. Let me dissect your broad
and sweeping potshot with objective specifics that any person can check for
themselves.
You're advancing the false proposition that Manifold's user base numbers
only in "the hundreds or thousands" and thus that is why Manifold is highly
responsive to user requests whereas some other software packages that have
"literally millions of users" must make decisions about which new features
to implement and thus are slow to respond to user requests. That's
nonsense, which we will demonstrate by first showing you obviously have no
idea how many units Manifold sells, nor do you appear to have any idea of
how many licenses other GIS packages sell.
Although we do not publish our sales figures, you'd have to be spectacularly
inept at arithmetic to think we have only "hundreds or thousands" of users.
Manifold has pumped out a steady stream of GIS and related packages since
1997 (4.00, 4.50, Database Commander, 3D View Studio, 5.00, 5.00
Professional with Debugger, 5.00 Enterprise Edition, and this month, 5.50).
It's been a major new release about once every six months. The last time we
named names in our credits (4.50) there were 42 people named. If I can get
you to pause a moment from your unfounded attacks and speculation to put the
arithmetic part of your skill set into play, I would invite you to take what
you think is a reasonable profit margin based on an average sales price of
under $245 and to then make a back of the envelope calculation what you
think the costs are of creating, maintaining and evolving a package of the
breadth and sophistication of Manifold System (well over 1.5 million lines
of VC++ code) and then give your estimate of just how many units must be
sold to keep such an enterprise growing and prospering as Manifold obviously
has. There's lots of programming industry data that brackets the high side
and low side of what it takes to create such packages that you can use to
guide your assumptions, if you like.
You'll see that given any remotely realistic assumptions about costs and
profits the total number of units works out to something considerably more
than the "hundreds or thousands" number you wrote. In fact, most such "back
of the envelope" calculations I've seen come out
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
