Re: Turbo: A great idea, not properly thought through... ?

Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo) wrote:

Just to clarify, because what you are saying isn't true:

So you say.


The pricing is firm. It's just not announced.

It was firm at the point of announcing the Turbo line? Then why
withhold that information?

That simply doesn't make sense. But you can insist that it was settled
months ago and there'd be no way to prove otherwise so I guess we'll
just have to take your word for it even if it flies in the face of
common sense.

Hey-ho.

(I would shrug but my shoulders are too sore <g>)


The upgrade policy is firm and clear.

When did it become so?

Recall that you replied to someone else that you would take the
question of upgrade policy to an internal discussion but could make no
promises on an outcome.

Self evidently therefore there was (or -appeared- to be) no decided
policy. If there was, wouldn't the Product Manager know about it?
Surely there's be no need to go and discuss it, if it was already
decided?

Of course, may it was decided and the Product Manager hadn't been
informed, but it might then be reasonable to thing that he would have
come back quick-smart and given the answer.

I've not seen a definitive reply to the effect that that internal
discussion had taken place and resulted in a definite conclusion one
way or the other.

We might infer that it had from the continued resistance to the idea
that it should be possible for D7 users to upgrade to Turbo, but
nowhere have I seen a satisfactory, or for that matter entirely
unambiguous, answer as to why it has been decided that it _won't_ be
possible.

Plenty of spurious arguments as to why it _shouldn't_ be
possible/shouldn't be of interest, none of which actually stand close
scrutiny.

But no actual statement that it _won't_ be.


If the policy is firm and established, just go ahead and tell us - "No
way no how will there be an upgrade price for D7 users wishing to move
into Turbo"

Really. Please. If that _is_ the case. Just come out and say so.



No one has had to push anyone.

You might not consider it pushing, but when answering a question by
dodging it doesn't count imho. If the question has to be asked again,
differently phrased to try and elicit a clear answer then that might be
considered having to "push".

To whit I refer you again to the question of:

while TRUE do
begin
Q: "I can upgrade to BDS?"
A: "Yes"

Q: "What's this Turbo thing?"
A: "It's a version of BDS"

Q: "So I can upgrade to Turbo?"
A: "No, it's a new product"

Q: "Eh? Why can't I upgrade to Turbo?"
A: "You can - you can upgrade to BDS"

"I don't want to. I want to upgrade to Turbo"

"Why would you want to do that? It's BDS - you can
already upgrade to that"
end;



I see no part of the plan being incomplete. If you think parts are
incomplete, then let me know; I'll show you the completeness. ;-)

<tr class="content2" align=center>
<td>Data***</td>
</tr>

<tr class="content2" align=center>
<td>Feature Matrix</td>
</tr>

The other bits (articles, downloads etc) might be forgiven for not
being present for a product that is yet to tangibly exist (i.e. be
released) but no data ***? no feature matrix?

Or if they do exist, not providing them?


Or are you saying that it was always part of the plan to release an
incomplete web presence as part of the marketting build up?

Cunning.

;)

--
Jolyon Smith
.