note
eyepopslikeamosquito
<P>
<blockquote>
<I>
Another issue with "quality" is again related to marketing -
a mediocre product available *now* is probably going to do better than high-quality vaporware that will be out "real soon now".
</I>
</blockquote>
Maybe. However, my experience has been that marketing folks tend to oversell the importance of being first to market. Quoting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cooper">Alan Cooper</a> from
<a href="http://www.cooper.com/content/insights/newsletters/2004_issue02/Inmates_Foreword_excerpt.asp">The Inmates are Running the Asylum</a>:
<blockquote>
Shipping a product that angers and frustrates users in three months is <I>not</I> better than shipping a product that pleases users in six months ... A third rate product that ships late often fails, but if your product delivers value to its users, arriving behind schedule won't necessarily have lasting bad effects ... Microsoft Access shipped several years late, yet it has enjoyed formidable success in the market. Conversely, if a product stinks, who cares that it shipped on time.
</blockquote>
</P>
<P>
In 1990, the PenPoint computer from GO was first to market. Then followed the Apple Newton in 1992. Then General Magic's Magic Link in 1994. Finally, in 1996, <I>six years late</I>, the PalmPilot arrived to win the market. Hmmm, let's hope Perl 6 emulates the PalmPilot. ;-) Conversely, can anyone name a current market leader who was first to market?
</P>
564190
564537