The Great "Hard Return" Debate

[Steve Lamb]

Friday, November 05, 1999, 1:43:48 PM, Ralph wrote:
> Sorry Steve, I though the whole idea was to let people choose the text
> editor with which they are most familiar or which satisfies all of
> their various text editing needs and precisely not force them to use
> the one bundled with a particular program.

    Correct, it is.  Having something as default so you can get the work done
does not preclude the user from replacing it and removing it without removing
the core functionality.  Furthermore a portion of the idea is to give the
programmers *more time* on the core functionality of the program by allowing
them to not work on the ancillary things.


> Quite frankly, I've used Pine and Pico and while I find them immensely
> useful when I telnet into certain systems, I certainly wouldn't want to have
> to depend on either one as my primary email or editing tools.

    Right, and you don't have to.  You can use something else.  But let's say,
for the moment, that you liked pine but hate Pico.  Guess what, you can use
another editor in place of pico seamlessly.  The fact that pico is there by
default does not preclude the use of other editors.

    A better analogy is mutt or slrn or a few others which use the $editor
environment variable.  The user just sets $editor and all programs use that by
default.  But that isn't as applicable in Windows because there really is no
equivalent.

> Wrong.  Just because you do know of a function doesn't mean that it is
> useful to you.

    Then who is the judge.  The individual user.  Therefor if the user is
using his editor he has chosen.  Got'cha.

> Sure there is.  Do they share the same terminology, vocabulary, fonts
> and colors in their help screens, pop-up menus and RMB options?  If the
> program crashes is there just one number to call or support desk to
> contact?  If the mailer is updated will its authors be able to force
> the editor's authors to update their product if needed in order to
> remain compatible?  Will downloadable updates be provided in a single
> integrated package which includes both the mailer and editor upgrades?

    Tell me why none of these are really a problem in the unix world and
having those tasks separated out isn't an issue.

    For support, you tell me how the "one number" theory helps at all now.
Most support isn't worth it.  Certainly not from Netscape, Microsoft or any
other integrated vendor.

    To remain compatible?  They're passing text.  It isn't an issue.  You
define a standard interface and be done with it.

    Downloads including updates of all components.  Why not?

> I don't want my employees to become 'power users'.

    Your loss.  The more comfortable people are with computers, the more
efficient they are.  The more efficient they are with the computer, the more
efficient they are doing work.  That, in the long run means you need to hire
less people to do work and saves *YOU* money.

> For them, the computer is just another piece of office equipment like a
> copying machine or a stapler, all of which are simply tools for
> accomplishing the tasks they have been assigned.

    A computer is not another piece of office equipment like a copying machine
or a stapler.  It is not a simple tool.

> Being a 'power user' is not part of their job descriptions and should not be
> a prerequisite for using the computer effectively. I run a medical device
> manufacturing company and not a computer service agency. My company has just
> one power user - me - and sometimes even that's one too many.<g>

    No, it should not be.  That is not what I said and you know it.  I'd
kindly remind you not to put words in my mouth.  I said that computer users
are only new users *once*.

> The problem is that while the market which is looking for simple
> integrated solutions is growing, the market looking for specialized
> integratable components is not.

    Incorrect.  Flat out, 100% incorrect.  As more and more people come to
computers and try integrated "solutions" there are a certain percentage that
will be dissatisfied with those and want something else.  As one market grows
in numbers, so does the other.  However, it is generally only in one direction
that it flows.  IE, if people are dissatisfied with the integrated programs
they'll not go back.

    There are ISPs out there that make their business on one thing,
dissatisfied AOL customers.  AOL's market is "growing" in that they add tons
of new members every day.  They also lose tons of members each day.  Their
member growth exceeds their member loss for a net gain.  But the ISPs that go
after this "churn", those lost customers, make it their business to pick up
these customers and keep them.  AOL has got the "easy to install and use"
market locked up.  Anyone competing with them on that level is foolish.
However, having reliable service, powerful service, service that isn't
integrated and doesn't treat you like a newbie all the time is what those
other ISPs work at.  They gain AOL's lost customers and keep them.  They let
AOL introduce them to the internet and get them used to the terminology and
such and then nab them.

    Outlook Express, Communicator have the integrated market locked up.  For
any email client to succeed against those *FREE* alternatives is to do what
they are not doing.  Address the people who do not like what they have to
offer and do so in a manner that will keep them.  You cannot compete against
it.  Yet that is what you're sitting there advocating.  Think outside the box,

    Ralph, stop looking at pure numbers and realize what is really going on.
Let's take a pie.  Let's say there are 10,000,000 people out there wanting
email.  Let's say that 95% of them want an integrated program.  That is a nice
big piece of pie at 9,500,000 people.  But 95% of those people aren't going to
look beyond what was given to them and certainly not pay for something they
are getting for free.

    So that leaves 475,000 people who might look elsewhere for an integrated
email client.  Now, take a quick look at www.winfiles.com and www.tucows.com
email client sections.  Notice that there are a LOT of clients in there.  Now
go to your favorite search engine and spend an hour looking up free web based
email sites.  Off the top of my head I can think of rocketmail.com,
hotmail.com, operamail.com, zcentral.com, usa.net.  I also know of about a
dozen more.

    So take that 475,000 people and divide them up equally amongst all those
options.  Let's call it an even 20 even though I *KNOW* it is more.  23,750
people might look at your product.  Out of that we can't even count on a
10-20% purchase rate.  But let's just say 25% (very generous) do.  5937.5
potential customers.  Gee, that 9,500,000 piece of pie got damned small really
quick, didn't it?

    I'm curious as to how close my guestimates are to the real numbers of
customers of PMMail.  ;)

    Now, take the alternate route.  Focus on the core, strip off the other
stuff, get decent alternatives into place so those who want something to work
with at the beginning can have it.  Go for alternatives which are powerful in
what they do and work *WITH* those authors for a standard for passing the
data.  Let them worry about the core since matching standards of passing data
is much less work than building whole new applications.

    That puts you in the catagory of the other piece of the pie, the 500,000
that none of the web based ones are going after, that none of the integrated
people are going after.  In fact, so far, on the Windows platform there
*isn't* anyone that is trying that tact, going for the powerful core and
leaving the ancillary items elsewhere.  There isn't someone going for the
power user.  So get the powerful core out there, bill yourself as going after
the power user who doesn't want an integrated program.  Say only 50% of those
500,000 people look and from that you only get a generous 25% purchase rate,
that is still 62,500 potential customers.  Something of a boost there, isn't
it?

    $35/copy at 6000 users = $210,000  That's enough for 2 programmers for one
year at the low end of market scale.

    $35/copy at 62,500 users = $2,187,500 or enough for 20 programmers for the
same year.  5 programmers for 4 years.

    Let's not forget that the less they have to work on, the more work they
can put into the core or the less programmers they need to work on it total.

    So, to draw this portion of the letter to a close, why should anyone
entering the email client field today try to compete on the integration level
when their piece of the pie is so small and the required manpower is so high
when they could try going for the dissatisfied portion, produce a better core
that will appeal to that group, do so with less manpower and be able to turn a
tidy profit in the process?


> just another piece of electronic equipment that they want to be able to use
> with the minimum amount of effort and without having to RTFM.

    Which will never happen.  As much as they want, it is an unobtainable
goal.

> PMMail provides the ability to plug in your own text editor if that is what
> you want, but it would lose virtually all of its non-techie customers if it
> removed its built in editor.

    My point is that only techie customers find PMMail in the first place!

> The built-in editor needs only a minor amount of work to make it fit the
> needs of 99%+ of all email users. This should still leave plenty of time to
> add the IMAP support that you and others have been asking for.

    Oh ye of ignorance.  Here is where PMMail's editor lags behind TB!'s thus
far.

1: templates
2: macros
3: highlighting
4: on-the-fly spell checking
5: reflowing of text and quotes
6: proper word-wrapping

    Those are not minor issues.  That is a several month project in and of
itself.  That's before even contemplating that TB! has basic IMAP support in
it already.  PMMail lags there as well.  TB! has regexps in it.  I'd only been
pushing for those for years.  It also has database style message bases and a
very nice command-line interface for automation.  It also supports PGP from
2.6.2 all the way up to 6.5 through both an internal implementation as well as
external DLLs.

    PMMail only excels, by comparison, in filter setup and interface.  Even
then the interface is *barely* better.

    So, Ralph, what do you want BWS to work on?  There are a lot of core
features that I feel need to be worked on before the editor.  I don't think
I've ever seen an email client sold with this being said, "Well, the editor
was superb but everything else sucked.  I decided that since I could edit
really quickly I'd buy it."

    I do see clients being sold on the core features even though the editor is
lacking.  I do not believe, for a moment, your assertion of the market at
all.  Again, you are advocating that this client take on the integration
giants at their own game and have the gall to charge for it.  Something has to
give and I guarantee that Netscape and Microsoft with their millions upon
millions in the bank won't even bat an eye.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------