Home of the ColdFusion Community
|
Mailing Lists
|
Home /
Groups /
ColdFusion Talk (CF-Talk)
IDE announced: IDE/Compiler Business Model
Author: Craigsell
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315745
The Datadirect Driver for Oracle supports returned ref cursors but not
encryption. The Oracle Thin Client Driver supports encryption but not
returned ref cursors. I seem to recall the older Data Direct drivers did
not support ref cursors but that was some time ago
Author: Adam Haskell
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315731
Don't forget Thermo/Flash Catalyst when talking about amazing things done
with Eclipse...
Adam
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Gerald Guido
<gerald.guido@gmail.com>wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315689
> because they certainly sold someone high up on the idea that Sharepoint can
> do
> everything.
Doesn't look as cool as
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/dreamweaver/articles/getting_started_with_ice_eu_03.html
though :-)
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to advantageously grow intuitive viral niches
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315686
> > - it's definitely hurting sales
>
> I can't speak for you, but we've definitely lost a lot of CF sales because
> of the cost of the server side. A lot of client want to host their own. If
> the developers are losing sales I think that can reasonably translate into
> Adobe loosing sales.
It is a mistake to assume that Adobe's interests are directly aligned
with yours, just because you use their product.
Adobe doesn't necessarily want to make a lot of sales. What they want,
like any other sensible business, is to maximize their profit. If
Adobe could maximize their profit on CF by selling one copy for, say,
ten million dollars, that's probably what they'd do.
Adobe, and Macromedia before them, have spent significant time and
effort positioning CF as an enterprise product. That's the market in
which they've expressed interest. It doesn't make sense to expect them
to pursue the low-end market if their current approach is maximizing
their profits, and it makes sense to assume that Adobe has a better
gauge of the CF marketplace than you or I do on our own.
It's worth noting that CF's competitors are either free and
open-source (PHP, etc), or bundled with other things that someone
wants to sell (.NET, arguably J2EE). Since Adobe isn't built around
the services model embraced by many open-source vendors, and Adobe's
not selling operating systems, neither of these approaches make a lot
of sense for Adobe. Adobe has to make money from CF, since it doesn't
make sense for CF to be a loss-leader of some sort. And it may well be
the case that the best way for Adobe to make money from CF is to
target the enterprise market. And even if that's not actually the case
- something neither you nor I can definitively prove either way - if
Adobe believes it to be true, it makes sense for them to do what
they're doing.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta,
Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location.
Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information!
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315682
This is just speculation on my part but I think someone high up got pissed
off when the audit of Adobe and Macromedia products on the network happened.
That audit happened when the two companies became one, so been awhile. Or
it could just be that the MS marketing folks do a better job because they
certainly sold someone high up on the idea that Sharepoint can do
everything.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Tom Chiverton <tom.chiverton@halliwells.com
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315678
> At this point it does not matter anyway, corporate has long since decided
> that CF is not the avenue to continue down after having it as a standard
> for 8 or so years.
That's a real shame :-(
OOI did you try engaging with Adobe (or a local reseller) to have them come
down and give corporate a good talking at ?
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to evangelistically pursue synergistic next-generation
clicks-and-mortar fine-grained eyeballs
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315677
I really do not remember the exact rule and reason, too much time has passed
since I tackled that argument with them. I do remember finding plenty of
evidence that actually supported their stance, which typically is not the
case. So whatever the issue is/was would be a valid issue in regards to
whatever their security rules are over there. I know it has something to do
with how NETAPPs work and connect to that network but beyond that the
details are extremely hazy in my head.
At this point it does not matter anyway, corporate has long since decided
that CF is not the avenue to continue down after having it as a standard for
8 or so years.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Andrew Scott
<andrew.scott@aegeon.com.au>wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315672
> //machinename/folder/filename
> Can get access to the file, you dont need to map it to a drive letter, and
Yeah, I know that, and using that sort of path should be fine, if that's what
the sys. admins. want him to use.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to seamlessly utilize functionalities
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Nitai
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315670
Still sucks today :-(
On Nov 20, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Aar
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Andrew Scott
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315669
That doesnt make sense....
When you use
\\machinename\folder\filename<file://machinename/folder/filename>you
will still need to be authenticated, are they saying that they prefer
to
use an account that is not in the AD? What is that all about? I would have
thought a group in the AD sperate to normal accounts would work, but not
knowing enough about AD I could be wrong.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Aar
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Andrew Scott
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315668
Tom you have surprised me there....
//machinename/folder/filename
Can get access to the file, you dont need to map it to a drive letter, and I
think that is what he refers too.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Tom Chiverton <tom.chiverton@halliwells.com
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315667
To be honest I do not know 100% how it is setup because as I said we are not
allowed to get involved to that detail. It is my understanding it is the
difference of using \\netapp\blah v. F:\ the latter being something they
cannot setup due to needing an AD account that gives access to all
directories on the NETAPP and the former they can do but I am not 100% sure
it is down to the file share per project or if it is just \\netapp\ which
still gives full access to all directories. Now the specifics of how they
are setting those up and what accounts they have to use for one v. the other
is knowledge not known to me. I was once told the actual reasons behind all
of this but was told a year ago, that is when I found the way to do it if
using Apache and told them well why not just do this.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Tom Chiverton <tom.chiverton@halliwells.com
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315666
I know when I have tried using those drivers in the past with pre-existing
stored procedures that returned cursors that they did not function correctly
but I do not recall the issue since that was 1-2 years ago.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Nitai @ SixSigns
<nitai@sixsigns.com>wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Nitai
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315662
Ok, I missed the "out of the box" part. Honestly, we run Stored
Procedures in Oracle with the Oracle driver without problems. Sure
sometimes you need to write a variable with SQL statements (seem
strange) to make it work within a SP, but all in all it always worked.
Just as a side note.
On Nov 20, 2008, at 3:33 AM, Aar
> I said "out of the box" and you do indeed need Enterprise if you
> want to do
> it out of the box or at least to run stored procedures with any real
> success. Been down the route of other avenues to access Oracle and
> each has
> some gotchas.
--
Razuna On-Demand - Hosted Digital Asset Management Solution
Razuna - Open Source Digital Asset Management with Web Content
Management
http://www.razuna.vom/
Razuna - Open Source Forum Solution
http://www.kabunto.org/
Roozani - memorize everywhere
http://www.roozani.com/
SixSigns - Enrich people?s lives and web experience
http://www.sixsigns.com
http://blog.sixsigns.com
Follow us on Twitter
http://twitter.com/sixsigns
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315660
> We cannot take advantage of J2EE here because we store all the files on a
> NETAPP and it is my understanding that JRun needs to have a drive letter
> or something to that effect to get to the files when running in that
> configuration. Security rules prevent us from making a file share that
> uses an account which kills that route,
Bwuh ?
How do you get files off the storage system without using a file share ?
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to synergistically foster transparent applications
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Gerald Guido
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315649
>>I'm notoriously fickle though and one or two killers features will have
me
sold
I have seen some *Astounding* things done with Eclipse. Aptana, Yoxos,
MyEclipse and Flex Builder come to mind right off the bat. Keep in mind that
this is Adobe's brain trust we are talking about. With that said, I have a
feeling that we may be a bit more than mildly pleased with the results. But
then again I could be wrong. I often am.
G
--
Gerald Guido
http://www.myinternetisbroken.com
"Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them. My mother
cleans them."
-- Rita Rudner
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315647
We cannot take advantage of J2EE here because we store all the files on a
NETAPP and it is my understanding that JRun needs to have a drive letter or
something to that effect to get to the files when running in that
configuration. Security rules prevent us from making a file share that uses
an account which kills that route, supposeably at least pretty sure I saw a
way to do it if running Apache but we are running IIS and not choice there
for us. None of us in our group get access to that level of the servers
though unless our projects go onto a dedicated server which means the
project buys its own CF license as well as the machine itself and so on. If
we could take advantage of J2EE here it would mean a HUGE cost savings
considering just how many enterprise licenses are owned but at this point in
time even if a solution were presented it would mean nothing because
corporate has made the decision to go Microsoft across the board.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:10 PM, James Holmes
<james.holmes@gmail.com>wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315646
I said "out of the box" and you do indeed need Enterprise if you want to do
it out of the box or at least to run stored procedures with any real
success. Been down the route of other avenues to access Oracle and each has
some gotchas.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Nitai @ SixSigns
<nitai@sixsigns.com>wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: James Holmes
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315643
It's a DataDirect driver for Oracle, not an Oracle driver. So if
there's a huge price difference, it's DataDirect with whom the issue
lies.
Having said that, the commercial DataDirect driver costs more than all
of CF Enterprise, so I think we're getting a good deal. I also like
being able to run (for example) 10 VMs on one server for the cost of
one license, deploying to J2EE, distributing a compiled war, the
server monitor and all the other features we get from Enterprise. As
Enterprise software goes, it's a bargain (you should see what we pay
for Oracle).
mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles:
http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: s. isaac dealey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315638
> > Or to paraphrase: "Does it make sense to change our business model to
> > give currently paying customers a freebie, in order to chase after
> > people who are currently unwilling to pay?"
>
> Indeed :)
The major gist here being that, while they know for a fact that the
current customers have continued to pay for the existing product, there
is doubt as to how much revenue they would get from a new product if
they suddenly changed the business model. It doesn't necessarily make
changing the business model a bad decision, but it does mean there are
strong incentives for "sticking" as it were in a sort of "Texas hold 'em"
sense and they would need stronger evidence to support the idea that a
new business model would generate more revenue in the long run.
--
s. isaac dealey ^ new epoch
isn't it time for a change?
ph: 781.769.0723
http://onTap.riaforge.org/blog
Author: Charlie Griefer
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315635
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Indeed :)
--
I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I love my
wife. And I wish you my kind of success.
Author: s. isaac dealey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315634
Good Griefer said:
> In that limited scenario, sure. But how many customers are making
> purchases... which equates to revenue? By providing a free version, Adobe
> loses that revenue and gains a few more customers (who are not providing any
> additional revenue).
Or to paraphrase: "Does it make sense to change our business model to
give currently paying customers a freebie, in order to chase after
people who are currently unwilling to pay?"
--
s. isaac dealey ^ new epoch
isn't it time for a change?
ph: 781.769.0723
http://onTap.riaforge.org/blog
Author: Nitai
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315633
You dont need the Enterprise product to run Oracle on it.
On Nov 19, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Aar
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
--
Razuna On-Demand - Hosted Digital Asset Management Solution
Razuna - Open Source Digital Asset Management with Web Content
Management
http://www.razuna.vom/
Razuna - Open Source Forum Solution
http://www.kabunto.org/
Roozani - memorize everywhere
http://www.roozani.com/
SixSigns - Enrich people?s lives and web experience
http://www.sixsigns.com
http://blog.sixsigns.com
Follow us on Twitter
http://twitter.com/sixsigns
Author: Craig Dudley
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315632
Well you really have to take quotes in context ;-) The English language is so
inaccurate at times.
I was to be honest talking exclusively about cfeclipse, bolt being based on
eclipse too is quite likely to be similar in many ways, hence my attitude of
disinterest.
I'm notoriously fickle though and one or two killers features will have me sold
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
But... you didn't say, "unless it offers compelling features over and above
what CFEclipse offer, I can't see paying for it". You simply said (and I
paraphrase), "If it costs more than $0, count me out".
From that statement, it's not a stretch to deduce that regardless of the
features, you were simply not interested in paying for an IDE.
If you intended to suggest that it's not worth paying for unless it's got
features that aren't in CFEclipse, I'd agree with that :)
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315631
In our particular case corporate pays or has been paying for the Oracle
license/deal that covers the entire company's use and most of that is not
for web applications. Then when someone wants to build a web based
application it is up to them to front the bill for the application and
whatever means it needs to use to connect to the company defined standard
for databases. So currently the define standard is ColdFusion and Oracle
for web apps although it is going to change any day(been hearing this for
awhile) because Microsoft is offering SQL Server at next to nothing to them
and for whatever reason they(corporate) wants to go away from ColdFusion. I
forgot it was due to DataDirect though which I think is separate from Oracle
so the cost makes more sense at least when looking at it that way. The
people paying the bills though do not like seeing the drastic price
difference between both versions of CF and in all honesty as far as they are
concerned here if just one version was offered and cost what Enterprise
costs then it would not be an issue. It is when they see that Pro price v.
Enterprise, then and only then do they want to know why can't that cheaper
one be used and then they start looking into alternatives(other languages,
never alternative CF servers).
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Williams
<mailme@geodesicgrafx.com>wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Matthew Williams
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315630
They can get away with it because their (Oracle) thin client driver
sucks ;). The DataDirect version of the driver is far superior. It
could be argued, however, that a company that can put the funds out for
an "Enterprise" SQL server, it should be able to front funds for an
"Enterprise" web application server. I'm not saying that's my opinion,
merely what seems to be sentiment.
Matthew Williams
Geodesic GraFX
Author: Charlie Griefer
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315628
> >My point regarding cfeclipse is that it works really, REALLY well
>
> CFeclipse has been buggy (for lack of a better term) for me.
I prefer the term "eccentric" :)
It's not without its bugs and quirks. But for the most part, I've been able
to work around them. I've yet to encounter a "show-stopper" or an annoyance
that outweighed the benefits.
But yeah, with a team (presumably) working on it full time, I'd expect it to
be less eccentric than CFE, which had one guy working on it in his spare
time (and we all know how much spare time we have in our lives).
--
I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I love my
wife. And I wish you my kind of success.
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315629
Wouldn't the buginess be a part of Eclipse itself in regards to the source
safe integration?
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Nick Giovanni
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315625
>My point regarding cfeclipse is that it works really, REALLY well
CFeclipse has been buggy (for lack of a better term) for me. It's also a
real pain to integrate with source safe. I really do like CFEclipse when it
works. And if Adobe can offer the same or better, without the bugs and
support it, then I'd be willing to pay for it.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Charlie Griefer
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315624
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
But... you didn't say, "unless it offers compelling features over and above
what CFEclipse offer, I can't see paying for it". You simply said (and I
paraphrase), "If it costs more than $0, count me out".
From that statement, it's not a stretch to deduce that regardless of the
features, you were simply not interested in paying for an IDE.
If you intended to suggest that it's not worth paying for unless it's got
features that aren't in CFEclipse, I'd agree with that :)
--
I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I love my
wife. And I wish you my kind of success.
Author: Craig Dudley
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315622
That would be me :p
Persoanlly I don't care whether they charge me for the server or the IDE, or
perhaps even both as long as it's only roughly the same amount in total. I'm in
the rather unique position of having one server licence and need of only one IDE.
My point regarding cfeclipse is that it works really, REALLY well. So why should
we I pay for something which seems at first glance to be very similar (at least
in my mind). It's going to have to have some awesome extra features to make me
part with my hard earned cash, I ssupect many other cfeclipse users feel the
same.
Craig.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert Harrison <
robert@austin-williams.com> wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
I'm always curious when people make such definitive statements...
- it's definitely hurting sales
Do people really think that a corporation as large as Adobe makes decisions
in a vacuum? I'm not saying a big corporation is always right, but I'd tend
to think that the people making the decisions have more information at their
disposal and do take the information into consideration.
- Developers are always willing to pay for an IDE/compiler
Really? In the thread on the recently-announced CF IDE (the thread that
spawned this one), one developer unequivocally stated, "if it's more than
$0, i'll stick with CFEclipse".
As developers, we're passionate people. We make statements based more on
emotion than fact. I believe there's less emotion in the board rooms where
these decisions are made, and the decision-makers have a wealth of
information at their disposal that we as outsiders are simply not aware of.
It's easy for us to look at specific decisions as they affect us as
developers and/or business owners and lose sight of the fact that there's a
bigger picture out there.
--
I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I love my
wife. And I wish you my kind of success.
Author: Charlie Griefer
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315621
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Robert Harrison <robert@austin-williams.com
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
In that limited scenario, sure. But how many customers are making
purchases... which equates to revenue? By providing a free version, Adobe
loses that revenue and gains a few more customers (who are not providing any
additional revenue).
Again, I don't profess to have any profound insights as to the decision
making process or the information available to those making the decisions.
I'm just saying there's more to the story than what you or I see. At
least, i'd like to think so :)
--
I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I love my
wife. And I wish you my kind of success.
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315618
I prefer to remain ignorant and just complain about the cost difference of
the product I am telling people to buy. After all they do not care if it is
Oracle, Santa Clause or Adobe causing it to be significantly more money. If
that is the actual reason then seems a little silly since Oracle is already
charging crazy amounts for the database product itself but hey if they can
get away with it then more power to them.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Ian Skinner
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315617
Aar
> My only complaint is the need to run Enterprise for Oracle support out of
the box
Then your complaint is probably with Oracle. It is my, possible very
wrong, understanding that a big factor in the price difference between
Standard and Enterprise is the license fee for the Oracle driver.
Author: Robert Harrison
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315613
> - it's definitely hurting sales
I can't speak for you, but we've definitely lost a lot of CF sales because
of the cost of the server side. A lot of client want to host their own. If
the developers are losing sales I think that can reasonably translate into
Adobe loosing sales.
Robert B. Harrison
Director of Interactive services
Austin & Williams
125 Kennedy Drive, Suite 100 Hauppauge NY 11788
T : 631.231.6600 Ext. 119
F : 631.434.7022
www.austin-williams.com
Great advertising can't be either/or... It must be &.
Author: Aaron Rouse
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315607
While sales might be getting hurt right now due to the cost of the product.
The product must be selling well enough for them since they are clearly
continuing to invest in it via making new versions. My only complaint is
the need to run Enterprise for Oracle support out of the box when everything
else about Professional is fine enough for some project needs. That is only
a complaint of mine right now because just ran through the argument on two
pre-existing projects and the need to upgrade their versions of CF to CF8
from CF6.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Robert Harrison <robert@austin-williams.com
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Charlie Griefer
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:58140#315605
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert Harrison <
robert@austin-williams.com> wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
I'm always curious when people make such definitive statements...
- it's definitely hurting sales
Do people really think that a corporation as large as Adobe makes decisions
in a vacuum? I'm not saying a big corporation is always right, but I'd tend
to think that the people making the decisions have more information at their
disposal and do take the information into consideration.
- Developers are always willing to pay for an IDE/compiler
Really? In the thread on the recently-announced CF IDE (the thread that
spawned this one), one developer unequivocally stated, "if it's more than
$0, i'll stick with CFEclipse".
As developers, we're passionate people. We make statements based more on
emotion than fact. I believe there's less emotion in the board rooms where
these decisions are made, and the decision-makers have a wealth of
information at their disposal that we as outsiders are simply not aware of.
It's easy for us to look at specific decisions as they affect us as
developers and/or business owners and lose sight of the fact that there's a
bigger picture out there.
--
I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I love my
wife. And I wish you my kind of success.
|
May 24, 2012
|
Latest Fusion Authority Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
