No, I don't think there's a bottomless pit of money. That's quite a leap Dave. I've said two negative things about Adobe (ever). The first is that it doesn't do enough to market CF. This is not an uncommon opinion. And the second is that it looks silly to not have your site run on the web dev technology you sell. To me this also seems like a completely reasonable statement to make. You also don't need to rewrite your whole site just to mask the use of PHP. And it doesn't require a bottomless pit of money. So I think you're painting a dramatic picture of my comments that's disingenuous. You also keep saying how you don't know Adobe's business yet you have no problem telling others that their opinions about how Adobe does business is out to lunch. So which is it?
Also, how do you know this is the ONLY place that's ever noticed the Adobe isn't running on CF? Are you sure that didn't mean to say it's the only place YOU'VE seen it? Or are you really that knowledgeable that you have the intertubes indexed? On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Dave Watts <dwa...@figleaf.com> wrote: > > > > just for marketing. > > > > Ah yeah. Just. I mean hey, marketing isn't really that important to a > > company right? Companies spend billions on marketing just because it's > fun. > > And having consistency across a brand... well that's not very important > > either. I get it Dave. You're in bed with Adobe and you'll find a defence > > for any (in)action they may make. Fair enough. I do the same thing for > > Everton FC. > > Yes, companies spend money on marketing. Yes, brand consistency is > nice. But like anything else, marketing budgets are subject to > price/performance analysis.You seem to think there's a bottomless pit > of money for everything you believe is neglected. That is not the > case. > > I don't have to be in bed with Adobe to defend their actions or to > acknowledge that (a) they know their own business better than I do, > and (b) rewriting everything in CF might not be the best use of their > time and money. Presumably they've made the call that the marketing > value they'd get would be less than the time and money they'd spend. > Or perhaps the web properties in question are controlled by a > different department within Adobe than the one in charge of CF. > > Like I said already, the ONLY place anyone's ever expressed this > concern about Adobe's web sites not all using CF is here, on this > list. Presumably, the people on this list don't need to be convinced > of the value of CF. I'm not an Adobe stockholder, so I really don't > care if they do decide to rewrite everything in CF - which I think > would be a waste of time and money, and a distraction from their > actual business. But if I were a manager there, it would probably be a > pretty low priority for me. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > http://training.figleaf.com/ > > Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on > GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized > instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:341568 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
