At 9:32 PM +0000 2/25/07, Paul Findon wrote:
>There is no law or SEC regulation that stipulates a minimum profitability for 
>products, and Adobe could have simply raised the price if it really was such a 
>major draw on expenses.

 And the really pathetic irony here is that Frame Technologies first got into 
financial trouble as a result of entering the Windows market. They priced it 
too low to entice the low end OS users to buy it. Oy.

>Let's tackle the points:
>* Cost of development: Can't be much with cheap Indian labor, up to 90% off!
>* Cost of QA: Use customers as beta testers.
>* Cost of support: The Web, mailing lists, and online forums cost nothing.
>* Cost of marketing: Did Adobe ever market FrameMaker?
>* Cost to make it MacOS X-compatible: Use cheap labor? We'd even be happy with 
>a Carbon version. See below.

 I'd prefer it to be Carbon based. There are a things about Cocoa applications 
that are less desirable on several fronts.

>Quote from Apple developer site: "Carbon includes about 70 percent of the 
>existing Mac OS APIs, covering about 95 percent of the functions used by 
>applications. Because it includes most of the functions you rely on today, 
>converting to Carbon is a straightforward process."
>From a user's point of view, let's just imagine for a moment a FrameMaker with 
>all of the authoring and publishing capabilities that we've come to rely on 
>running on the world's best OS, with PDF-based Quartz imaging for beautiful 
>text, graphics, and PDF compatibility, OpenType, Unicode, automated workflows 
>with AppleScript, ColorSync for WYSIWYG color, and the power, reliability, and 
>stability of UNIX, not to mention easy access to all of our favorite UNIX 
>tools. A technical writer's nirvana.


  - web

Reply via email to