Re: Access for Macintosh?

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Peter Walker (pwalker_at_adsl.on.net)
Date: 07/10/04 

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:32:22 +1000

Great response ! Very well considered, and agree totally.

On 10/7/04 10:55 AM, in article
jemcgimpsey-D6E344.18553509072004@msnews.microsoft.com, "JE McGimpsey"
<jemcgimpsey@mvps.org> wrote:

> In article <2aa5701c465ed$dcbc29b0$a301280a@phx.gbl>,
> "Red Claw" <redclawtpd@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not talking about a Macintosh computer vs. a PC Computer. I'm
>> talking about software.
>
> Yes, I know. I was trying (and failing) to illustrate my point that the
> economics of a product depended on more than just the name attached.
>
>> Hundreds of man-years?
>
> Well, I probably should have said "over a hundred man-years". I'm
> assuming that includes everyone from management to testers, developers,
> coders, art, marketing, and manufacturing. If you assume 2 million lines
> of code at 20 lines per day, that's 50 programmer-years alone, though I
> realize that "lines per day" is a poor measurement.
>
>> Then how do you explain the other Office applications; Word, Excel,
>> PowerPoint? I know (at least for Word v.1 and Excel v.1) that they
>> came out first for Mac, but the code had to of gone back and forth
>> between the Windows and Mac platforms
>
> There *was* no Windows platform when MacXL and MacWord came out.
>
>> so the two sides would be able to open the others documents without
>> issue and be relativly close in functionality.
>
> Multiplan (which was the eminently forgettable DOS-spreadsheet) and
> DOS-Word had a very different look and feel and, IIRC, didn't even share
> file compatibility. I doubt there was much synergy there.
>
> Both Word and XL were rewritten from scratch for the Windows 3 platform,
> 2 - 3 years after they were developed on the Mac.
>
>> I don't see any reason why MS Access can't be ported to the
>> Macintosh platform inside of a year.
>
> The time would obviously depend on how many bodies you threw at it.
> However, from previous development experience, I doubt that even the
> *beta* period could be less than 6 months. If you think the dev phase
> could be done in less than 6 months, I think you're dreaming.
>
> It also depends on where those bodies are coming from. An Office update
> (that, while significant in a lot of respects, wasn't starting from
> ground zero) took MacBU 30 months. Should work on Office 12 be put on
> hold while Access is developed (and fall further behind its Win
> counterpart)? If not, how may added bodies do they hire? Would it even
> be possible to hire 100 experienced Mac programmers for a projected 6
> month job?
>
>> I'm not saying it should be free. I'm saying that it should cost the
>> same.
>
> Why?
>
>> MS Office Pro for Mac or PC should contain Word, Excel, PowerPoint,
>> Outlook/Entourage, AND Access.
>
> What, no Publisher?
>
> I would certainly be interested in that package (though personally I'd
> rather have VPC than Powerpoint)...
>
>> By leaving VPC off the Mac Office Pro and adding MS Access to it the
>> price can still remain $499. The same amount as Office Pro for
>> Windows.
>
> The price for Office Pro for Windows is completely irrelevant, other
> than that it establishes a benchmark for what is likely to be acceptable
> pricing in the business world. However, I agree with you that a package
> that includes Access probably will not sell if its price is higher than
> its Win counterpart.
>
> There are three interconnected factors that will determine whether Mac
> Access is a good development risk for MS: the # of potential sales, the
> added revenue per copy it can expect, and the development costs.
>
> DISCLAIMER: I have *no* idea what the actual numbers are, but here's a
> SWAG:
>
> In your scenario, the added revenue is $100 per full copy. Upgrades are
> cheaper, and institutional versions are much cheaper, so say the average
> expected additional revenue is $50 per copy sold. I have no statistics,
> but I'd be surprised if the expected life-cycle sales of a Mac version
> of Office was more than about 2 million copies. Assuming that even 10%
> of buyers wanted Access (which i think would be high), that leaves a
> total increase in revenue of $10M. To use the SWAG above, 50 programmer
> years at, say, a loaded $200K per year, eats up the entire expected
> additional revenue. Testing is probably 1/3 the cost of programming, to
> say nothing of development, art, manufacturing and marketing.
>
> Of course, the costs can be amortized over more than one development
> cycle, but since MS hasn't committed to more than 1 more version of
> MacOffice, and given the uncertainty of the market, I'd suspect the
> allowable period would be at most two development cycles, and perhaps
> only one.
>
> VBA tends to be more important in Access than in Word, and perhaps XL,
> so compatibility issues might force an upgrade to VBA6 in order to make
> Access marketable - add a whole lot of additional cost. And if Access is
> to be Applescript-able, add an additional developer or two.
>
> That doesn't include, of course, the opportunity cost - what additional
> revenue they might forgo by not developing other, more profitable
> ventures (such as Office 12, presumably).
>
> And, most importantly, it doesn't include any profit.
>
> Only MS knows what the actual numbers are, so I won't defend any of the
> particular numbers, but it would surprise me if a business case could be
> made for proceeding with Access.
>
>> Again, I think your talking hardware, not software. An
>> example:
>> Adobe Creative Suite Premium 1.1
>> Combines Photoshop CS, Illustrator CS, InDesign CS, Golive
>> CS, Acrobat 6.0 Professional, and Version Cue
>> Either Mac or Windows are $1,229.00 each.
>
> Not at all a good analogy. The market for Adobe CS has a *very*
> different demographic than Office. In any case, the primary applications
> have existed for several versions now, so there are no massive startup
> development costs as there would be for Access. That makes the marketing
> decision to charge the same price much easier.
>
>> MS Office should be the same as I said above.
>
> Other than some sense of "social equity", I haven't seen you present any
> reasons why this "should" be the case.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MS Access
    ... Windows for dialogs, screen draw, etc. ... > Office Pro doesn't come with the SAME applications for each platform. ... > the Mac. ... Don't forget to add that into the cost. ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office)
  • Re: Access for Macintosh?
    ... Porting Access to Mac would likely take hundreds ... platform inside of a year. ... should cost the same. ... By leaving VPC off the Mac Office Pro and adding ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office)
  • Re: Why Snow Leopard will Bomb.
    ... Apple netbook being subsidized down to competitive levels ... anyone could afford a Mac. ... fact that Apple machines cost more and the fact that Apple's customers ... Macs can't run 64-bit apps because no such app exists for them. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Optical drive disc stuck: solution
    ... You and most Mac owners I'd imagine (although fairly mute as you don't ... media whereas I have a small stack of the mini and odd shaped jobbies. ... order turn up with a Mini CD but with my tray / hub loading drives I ... their cost of ownership (to you, and I don't just restrict that to the ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: I SWITCHED!
    ... is its smooth integration with *NIX servers. ... the majority of computer users don't ever see a Mac. ... main reason I moved away from Suns; other factors contributed, but cost ... Yes, they can be cheap... ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)