Yes, you should put your sarcasm aside. (1) Even if we assumed that every licensed copy of FrameMaker Macintosh were to immediately upgrade to a new MacOS X version of FrameMaker and even if you grew that number by 50%, the numbers just are not there to justify the investment.
(2) Your "business plan" to turn FrameMaker into a word processor and bundle it with some spreadsheet and presentation program as well as a stripped-down copy of Illustrator sounds similar to such successful plans such as those associated with WordPerfect and IBM's Lotus group. Don't think so! - Dov > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Findon > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 1:30 PM > To: Free Framers List; framers at lists.frameusers.com > Subject: Re: Frame's future > > On 21 Feb 2007, at 16:28, Dov Isaacs wrote: > > > Comparing the Macintosh version of FrameMaker to a Ford > > Taurus is not a valid analogy. FrameMaker on Macintosh was > > NEVER a best-seller. It was a very small fraction of the > > FrameMaker user base, smaller than even Unix, that did not > > justify the continued expense of development, QA, support, > > and marketing -- especially given the cost of major changes > > to make it MacOS X-compatible. > > For a company with 2006 sales of $2.5 billion, net profit of $505 > million (would have been higher without Macromedia merger), and > assets of $5.9 billion, one could almost feel sorry for Adobe. > > Apparently, Adobe's CEO earned $930,000, with a $1 million bonus. > That's the kind of cash I regularly loose down the back of the sofa, > so I can really sympathize. > > Sarcasm aside, Adobe cannot deny that it is partly to blame for poor > sales of FrameMaker - on all platforms. Those of us that have been > FrameMaker users for near on 20 years are fully aware of Adobe's > failure to develop, promote, and deliver on its potential since > buying Frame Technology in 1995. > > Mac OS X was announced in 1998. At that time, my company was still > using version 5.5.6. Having used FrameMaker on NeXTSTEP for several > years, I knew that Mac OS X would be a great OS and I wanted it for > my company. We've never been that quick to upgrade, and knowing full > well that Mac OS X was just around the corner was a good reason to > wait, for in just a few years, or so we thought, we'd have > the power, > reliability, and style of NeXTSTEP on the Mac and FrameMaker to go > with it. Several versions of Mac OS X came and went but still we > waited. Then, out of the blue, in March 2004 Adobe announced that it > was discontinuing Mac FrameMaker and there were no plans for > a Mac OS > X version. > > Given those circumstances, it's hardly surprising that Mac > FrameMaker > sales were slow. Fast forward to 2006 and we see exactly the same > thing happening all over again, although this time Adobe > acknowledges > that sales of Creative Suite are slow because users are waiting for > an Intel version. See Adobe's latest F10K filing for details. > > Funny how Adobe accepts poor sales of Creative Suite are due to > customers waiting for an Intel version, but won't acknowledge that > Mac FrameMaker sales were slow because users were waiting for a Mac > OS X version. The demand was there, but Adobe never made the > product. > How can you blame customers for not buying a product that never even > existed? You don't need a business degree to understand that this is > simple chicken and egg stuff. It would be like Apple saying, "oh, we > never made an MP3 player because there was no demand." Sometimes, a > company has to create the demand, build a market, things that Adobe > did not do with FrameMaker. > > Adobe could have pushed FrameMaker as a 1st class word processor and > cut the price. Throw in a spreadsheet, a cut-down version of > Illustrator, and a Powerpoint alternative and you have a whole new > office platform. With Microsoft encroaching more and more into > Adobe's markets (i.e., Expression Studio), Adobe may soon be wishing > it had done something like this. > > Paul > <http://www.fm4osx.org/>