Re: ADA IS NOT A FAILURE.

[psinntp!vitro.com!news@uunet.uu.net (Morris J. Zwick)]

In article <CBHxsB.5p2@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> willett@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
(david.c.willett) writes:
>	The break-even point I mentioned earlier is the point on the 
>time vs. unit sales graph where *all* the projected R&D costs would be paid
>back.  From then on, the product makes a profit.  Clearly, the unit price 
>the market will bear for the product has a great deal to do with where the
>break even point ends up.  Quite a bit of the "SWAG" part of unit pricing
>goes into setting the price the market will bear.  Doing the job well requires
>a keen understanding of one's potential market.  It is in that understanding
>of potential markets for small-platform Ada compilers that the Ada vendors
>probably missed the boat.

Or that, given their risk/reward comfort levels, should not have even opted to
ride on any boat. PC software has a far lower comfort level because of the low
prices that the market will bear. To be successful, you either must have or
must generate a significant market for your product. Could the Ada vendors do
that by themselves without risking a pile of money? I doubt it.

         ___________________________________________________________________
        /  Morris J. Zwick	                 Internet: mzwick@vitro.com
__     /   Vitro Corporation	             Voice:    (301) 231-2784
  \   /    14000 Georgia Ave.                ___________________________
   \ /     Silver Spring, MD 20906-2972      |"I don't want the world; |
    *                                        | I just want your half!" |
                                             |  - They Might Be Giants |