From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.236.61.111 with SMTP id v75mr75094419yhc.39.1420577995768; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 12:59:55 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.230.133 with SMTP id sy5mr135785obc.1.1420577995673; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 12:59:55 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!dc16no4542264qab.1!news-out.google.com!h6ni6igv.0!nntp.google.com!h15no341854igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 12:59:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=73.46.72.234; posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU NNTP-Posting-Host: 73.46.72.234 References: <87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com> <87tx06rve6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <79f3eff7-2b45-40ae-af94-fa9a17426d82@googlegroups.com> <87bnmd8mg2.fsf@ixod.org> <19cf9bc2-f8b9-4735-b427-7b070dda59da@googlegroups.com> <72ede803-e2e9-4e21-a415-457374bef87d@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1337ca4c-a19e-468e-bc07-5412438f662b@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware From: David Botton Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:59:55 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24427 Date: 2015-01-06T12:59:55-08:00 List-Id: > That's not really fair. Both Atego (with ObjectAda) and RRS (with Janus/A= da)=20 > tried to market low-cost compilers for the mass market, but neither made= =20 > money. You missed my point, which was fair. There is _no_ low-cost compiler market= . That bottomed out already before OA and RRS started to market their produ= cts to a non-existing market. That market is not going to materialize again= ever either. In fact there is no _compiler_ market at all, there is a slightly synthetic= market still in the Ada world, but that is just about gone and why sharewa= re license games is a pathetic answer to trying to make believe it is still= there (btw it is just about gone for every language I know of). There is a small enterprise compiler support market for Ada and likely that= will remain for some time but not likely to grow much. There are huge markets and lots of money to be made in many areas, but all = things change and the old markets and ways of doing business were already d= ying as Ada 95 was emerging. > Our experience was that the more money and effort that we put into it, th= e=20 > more money that we lost (sales were about the same either way). Of course it did. My point is that vendors that want enterprise business ne= ed to expand at any cost including free the other markets for a trickle up = affect. > I've heard that the personal version of ObjectAda had essentially the sam= e=20 > results -- Atego put a lot of money into it and didn't even break-even. (= And it doesn't make sense to lose money on every unit one sells.) Sure it does if you see it as marketing dollars not sales figures. Also the= ir personal price point was off, so not so personal. AdaCore understands this a bit, and so their GAP program, etc. Not enough, = but at least shows they are not completely inept at business, just not grea= t at it. > There may be a model out there which works for a low-end Ada compiler That market died. Although possible to make a few dollars for a mom and pop= in training and high level support. > Which makes it problematical, as some sort of support is required (at a= =20 > minimum, packaging and fixing of packaging, which can take an amazing amo= unt=20 > of time). A long time ago, people realized that open source changed where the dollars= are in software. The vendors that can't see beyond compiler sales haven't survived (per se) = and those in large support contracts are floating, but not swimming if that= is their only real product. David Botton