Re: Symbolics Marketing Strategy

[Brad Miller <miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>]

    Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 08:08 CST
    From: dmitchell@backus.trc.amoco.com (Donald H. Mitchell)

	Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 09:15 PST
	From: taylor@CHARON.arc.nasa.gov (will taylor)

	[...]
	I propose that Symbolics bundle CLIM, Concordia, Statice, & Joshua into
	Genera for NO increase in software purchase/maintenance costs to users.
	Then agressively market these capabilities which would now be part of 
	the basic Symbolics Genera operating system. 
	[...]

	- Will Taylor         taylor@pluto.arc.nasa.gov

    I strongly second the idea that CLIM ought to be bundled (perhaps
    eventually becoming THE interface). 

The problem I see with this strategy is that it reinforces the idea that
Symbolics has to make their money on the hardware. People buy their systems
for the software, and NOT the hardware. I'd much rather see them price their
software according to what the market will bear, and make it available on a
variety of platforms. Concordia, for instance, needs to be price competitve
and marketed as an alternative to FrameMaker.

And lest we forget, some of us bought our Symbolics machines as, essentially
CASE machines. To increase our productivity writing our own applications. We
really don't need or want the additional cost of this added software (other
than CLIM which does relate to development) passed on to us in future
hardware or software costs, because we don't use them. To us, Symbolics
machines are development machines, not application engines.