Andy's comments and positioning...

[Dan Shafer]

OK, now I'm going to step in and tick off some folks and probably 
generate yet another round of discussion here.

WARNING: Long and opinionated.

Full Disclosure: Even though I use Rev "professionally" I do not 
consider myself primarily a professional programmer. I'm a tinkerer 
first. It's nice I get paid to do this stuff but I'd do it even if I 
didn't get paid (though I'd work on different projects!). I'm focused 
on my long-time role as the champion of the Inventive User. I invented 
the term if not the concept. I could give a good rodent's behind about 
professional developers as a market because of two perceptions gained 
from three decades living in their world: (1) They resist, as a group, 
changing languages and tools once they've learned one and invested gobs 
of time in building up libraries, learning where the bodybugs are 
buried, and developed a rep; (2) It's difficult or impossible to form 
real support communities around them because of the need for them to 
treat lots of stuff as proprietary and their need to stay focused on 
their tasks as opposed to helping some other poor soul.

I allow the possibility -- even the probability -- that I'm wrong in my 
perceptions. But at least you know where I'm coming from.

<rant>

Back in the days I was touting Smalltalk as the Language of the Gods, 
you couldn't get a serious developer to look at it. A tiny, tiny 
minority did. Of those who did, almost all of them would eventually 
agree it was superior to their current toolset. And they'd still refuse 
to change. "I'm six months behind on my C++ project," they'd say. "I'd 
love to be able to take the time now to switch and master Smalltalk but 
I can't afford the cut in pay."

So to me, you build interest and market momentum for a new programming 
tool by tapping into two markets: education and hobbyists. Both have 
the potential to become professionals. And both are larger than the 
total market of professional programmers *who are willing to consider a 
new tool*. That audience, as many companies have found out the hard 
way, is much smaller than it appears.

Oh, this is gonna get long. Sorry. But I hope you find it interesting 
if not worthwhile. A couple of decades ago, I was a marketing 
communications guru at Intel. My boss came to me. "Motorola keeps 
beating us at design-in decisions with clearly inferior technology. 
Find out why and tell me how we fix it." Didn't take me long. Motorola 
was providing free SDK's (System Design Kits) to any college 
engineering professor who wanted them for his students, and providing 
them for free. When those engineers graduated, they'd get to their 
first job. Their boss would say, "Here's your first project. It's eight 
months behind schedule. What tools do you want?" The newly minted 
engineer would open his or her briefcase, point to the Motorola SDK and 
say, "I already know how to use this." The boss would ask, "Will it do 
what we need to do here?" The new engineer would say "Yes." "Then order 
it," the boss would say.

Intel started a competing SDK program for colleges and universities. I 
helped build that program. In three years, Intel was out-performing 
Motorola in those situations again.

So the education market is crucial, but it takes years to show an 
impact in the market. Only a company with huge resources can afford to 
give *hardware* away to that group. But a software company? If you 
don't offer support and you deliver the product electronically, your 
costs to seed the education market -- other than marketing -- are 
vanishingly small.

That said, I also tired quickly as I did that study for Intel of 
educational institutions and educators who (not universally but often 
enough to come to my attention): (a) demanded free or low-cost stuff 
even though they recommend textbooks that cost hundreds of dollars, 
some of which the recommending profs wrote; (b) garnered substantial 
government grants whose proceeds could have been put to use in buying 
stuff for students rather than paying assistants and buying travel & 
entertainment to attend conferences; (c) demanded extensive tech 
support; (d) in general, acted as if the world owed them a living. I 
saw a lot of that. A lot.

So I say to educators: if Rev is a great tool for teaching your class, 
how about getting some budget for it so the company can still be in 
business when your students graduate and look for jobs? And I say to 
Rev, if you find educational markets where penetration has serious 
long-term potential value, discount the heck out of the product or 
offer it free. But don't let those activities divert any substantial 
resources from continuing to develop the tool us 
hobbyists-cum-professionals need and are willing to pay for.

</rant>


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Revolutionary
Author of  "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
http://www.revolutionpros.com for more info
Available at Runtime Revolution Store (http://www.runrev.com/RevPress)