[Techtalk] "I need to use Windows because ..."

[James]

On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Kathryn Andersen wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 12:11:01PM -0500, Glenda R. Snodgrass wrote:
> [Adobe Frame Maker]
> > It was ported to Linux as a beta product in 1999 I believe, with a 
> > one-year license, but it was never brought to market and when the clock 
> > turned at the end of one year, it quit working.
> > 
> > I never understood why they didn't release it, because the beta was really 
> > rock-solid.  I mean, all the work was done!  I used it for a year to do a 
> > club newsletter, fairly complex layout (~25 pp with a couple dozen ads and 
> > multiple frames/fonts/formatting, etc.) and never had any problems with 
> > it.  I assumed at the time they didn't release it because they couldn't 
> > sell it for the price they wanted, but shoot, with all the work done, why 
> > not sell it at any price and get some income rather than none?  Of course 
> > the Linux-on-the-desktop market is much bigger now than it was then too, 
> > so maybe they're sitting on it and might release it later?
> 
> Speaking as a software professional, "all the work" is *not* done.
> The problem is, that if they release it, they still have to support it,
> and if they have to support it, then they have to pay the wages of the
> programmer (and/or support person(s)) who have to be available to fix
> problems with it.  Which means they have to make enough money on it
> to justify that expense.  Whenever you have more than one version of
> something, you have to have the resources to support the alternative
> version.

Support costs may be one factor, but they could have avoided that by 
releasing it unsupported; I suspect a larger factor would be the risk of 
undercutting their Windows and Mac releases if the price were lower? As I 
recall, FrameMaker isn't cheap - releasing a cheap/free version (even 
unsupported) on Linux would probably make quite a few of their clients 
switch to using the Linux version.


James.