Comments on: The Five Stages of Marketing http://blog.grokmedia.com/2009/01/10/the-five-stages-of-marketing/ grokking marketing, advertising, and design. Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:10:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Neuron http://blog.grokmedia.com/2009/01/10/the-five-stages-of-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-290 Neuron Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:42:40 +0000 http://blog.grokmedia.com/?p=307#comment-290 I very much appreciate you sharing this inside information. Looking from the outside, it is hard to imagine how such a good product can fail. I am sad that this is the case. Like you, I dream of the day that the source code will be released. I am sure the open source people wil be willing to further develop it. Until then, good luck with all of your future endeavors. I very much appreciate you sharing this inside information. Looking from the outside, it is hard to imagine how such a good product can fail. I am sad that this is the case. Like you, I dream of the day that the source code will be released. I am sure the open source people wil be willing to further develop it. Until then, good luck with all of your future endeavors.

]]> By: captaindigital http://blog.grokmedia.com/2009/01/10/the-five-stages-of-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-289 captaindigital Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:11:32 +0000 http://blog.grokmedia.com/?p=307#comment-289 There's way more to this than you might realize. Designer 1.0 (and it's forerunner, In*A*Vision) were really nothing more than an app that surfaced the Windows Graphic Design Interface (GDI). Starting with Designer 3.0, the app became a much more robust design tool. I was at Micrografx from 87 through 92. I saw Designer go from a relatively crude tool to a then-state of the art design tool. <br><br>Internally, there were huge debates over the direction of the application. I ran Creative Services - the in-house ad agency for the company. As such, we were both employees and users. We would go to the developers and say "we want Designer to do ______" and they would usually tell us why we were crazy and why it was impossible to do what we wanted. When we complained that if you took a drawing and stretched and scaled it several times it would lose accuracy, the response was "well...don't do that." Frustrating. Eventually, Corel released their Corel DRAW! application, and it did all the things Designer didn't (that we'd requested). The response from the developers? They claimed that the Corel code was poorly written kludges - not worth of Micrografx. <br><br>The sad part was that Designer WAS a vastly superior tool, with better features (and better code), than Corel. The turning point was when the company pre-announced Designer 4.0 - and then slipped the delivery date. That torpedoed sales and triggered massive layoffs. After I left, the company lost more focus, getting into kids software (Crayola, Hallmark Card Studio, etc.) and eventually sold out to Corel. I'm not sure why Corel bought Micrografx. I expected them to either subsume Designer into Corel, or keep Designer for "technical drawing" and position Corel DRAW as more of a entry-level drawing tool. They did neither. <br><br>I've been through this orphaned tool problem twice now - first with Designer, and second with FreeHand. Both of them are superior to their direct competition (Corel and Illustrator, respectively), but both are evidently doomed to play "Betamax" to the competitors "VHS." Frankly, I wish that both Corel and Adobe would release the orphaned product's source code into the wild, maybe under the Creative Commons license, and see if the open source crowd would be interested in updating the apps. You're right...it will never happen - but a guy can dream... There's way more to this than you might realize. Designer 1.0 (and it's forerunner, In*A*Vision) were really nothing more than an app that surfaced the Windows Graphic Design Interface (GDI). Starting with Designer 3.0, the app became a much more robust design tool. I was at Micrografx from 87 through 92. I saw Designer go from a relatively crude tool to a then-state of the art design tool.

Internally, there were huge debates over the direction of the application. I ran Creative Services – the in-house ad agency for the company. As such, we were both employees and users. We would go to the developers and say “we want Designer to do ______” and they would usually tell us why we were crazy and why it was impossible to do what we wanted. When we complained that if you took a drawing and stretched and scaled it several times it would lose accuracy, the response was “well…don't do that.” Frustrating. Eventually, Corel released their Corel DRAW! application, and it did all the things Designer didn't (that we'd requested). The response from the developers? They claimed that the Corel code was poorly written kludges – not worth of Micrografx.

The sad part was that Designer WAS a vastly superior tool, with better features (and better code), than Corel. The turning point was when the company pre-announced Designer 4.0 – and then slipped the delivery date. That torpedoed sales and triggered massive layoffs. After I left, the company lost more focus, getting into kids software (Crayola, Hallmark Card Studio, etc.) and eventually sold out to Corel. I'm not sure why Corel bought Micrografx. I expected them to either subsume Designer into Corel, or keep Designer for “technical drawing” and position Corel DRAW as more of a entry-level drawing tool. They did neither.

I've been through this orphaned tool problem twice now – first with Designer, and second with FreeHand. Both of them are superior to their direct competition (Corel and Illustrator, respectively), but both are evidently doomed to play “Betamax” to the competitors “VHS.” Frankly, I wish that both Corel and Adobe would release the orphaned product's source code into the wild, maybe under the Creative Commons license, and see if the open source crowd would be interested in updating the apps. You're right…it will never happen – but a guy can dream…

]]> By: Neuron http://blog.grokmedia.com/2009/01/10/the-five-stages-of-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-288 Neuron Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:51:01 +0000 http://blog.grokmedia.com/?p=307#comment-288 The reality is that Micrografx did know better than all the rest how to write Windows graphics software. Maybe your marketing guys did not do their job properly. 8 years after its release, Designer 9 performs much better on my Vista machine (with some creative installation maneuvers) than the most recent release of Designer from Corel (Designer X4). Have your tried pasting from the clipboard into Designer X4? Except for the simplest objects, you will get garbage. After being disappointed greatly by Designer 10, 12, and now X4, I have promised myself that I will no longer support this product from Corel. What is the point? I still revert to Designer 9 and will continue to do so until it completely stops functioning on newer Windows operating systems. It is really too bad; Micrografx Designer truly was a wonderful product. Its intuitive features and functionalities I believe are unmatched by most other graphics programs out there. Sure, now out of date, maybe it does not have the latest cool features, but it still gets plenty of use on my machine. I would do anything to have a true new version of Designer. I would even settle for getting my hands on the source code :) but I know that is not going to happen!!! The reality is that Micrografx did know better than all the rest how to write Windows graphics software. Maybe your marketing guys did not do their job properly. 8 years after its release, Designer 9 performs much better on my Vista machine (with some creative installation maneuvers) than the most recent release of Designer from Corel (Designer X4). Have your tried pasting from the clipboard into Designer X4? Except for the simplest objects, you will get garbage. After being disappointed greatly by Designer 10, 12, and now X4, I have promised myself that I will no longer support this product from Corel. What is the point? I still revert to Designer 9 and will continue to do so until it completely stops functioning on newer Windows operating systems. It is really too bad; Micrografx Designer truly was a wonderful product. Its intuitive features and functionalities I believe are unmatched by most other graphics programs out there. Sure, now out of date, maybe it does not have the latest cool features, but it still gets plenty of use on my machine. I would do anything to have a true new version of Designer. I would even settle for getting my hands on the source code :) but I know that is not going to happen!!!

]]> By: Neuron http://blog.grokmedia.com/2009/01/10/the-five-stages-of-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-210 Neuron Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:42:40 +0000 http://blog.grokmedia.com/?p=307#comment-210 I very much appreciate you sharing this inside information. Looking from the outside, it is hard to imagine how such a good product can fail. I am sad that this is the case. Like you, I dream of the day that the source code will be released. I am sure the open source people wil be willing to further develop it. Until then, good luck with all of your future endeavors. I very much appreciate you sharing this inside information. Looking from the outside, it is hard to imagine how such a good product can fail. I am sad that this is the case. Like you, I dream of the day that the source code will be released. I am sure the open source people wil be willing to further develop it. Until then, good luck with all of your future endeavors.

]]> By: captaindigital http://blog.grokmedia.com/2009/01/10/the-five-stages-of-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-209 captaindigital Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:11:32 +0000 http://blog.grokmedia.com/?p=307#comment-209 There's way more to this than you might realize. Designer 1.0 (and it's forerunner, In*A*Vision) were really nothing more than an app that surfaced the Windows Graphic Design Interface (GDI). Starting with Designer 3.0, the app became a much more robust design tool. I was at Micrografx from 87 through 92. I saw Designer go from a relatively crude tool to a then-state of the art design tool. <br><br>Internally, there were huge debates over the direction of the application. I ran Creative Services - the in-house ad agency for the company. As such, we were both employees and users. We would go to the developers and say "we want Designer to do ______" and they would usually tell us why we were crazy and why it was impossible to do what we wanted. When we complained that if you took a drawing and stretched and scaled it several times it would lose accuracy, the response was "well...don't do that." Frustrating. Eventually, Corel released their Corel DRAW! application, and it did all the things Designer didn't (that we'd requested). The response from the developers? They claimed that the Corel code was poorly written kludges - not worth of Micrografx. <br><br>The sad part was that Designer WAS a vastly superior tool, with better features (and better code), than Corel. The turning point was when the company pre-announced Designer 4.0 - and then slipped the delivery date. That torpedoed sales and triggered massive layoffs. After I left, the company lost more focus, getting into kids software (Crayola, Hallmark Card Studio, etc.) and eventually sold out to Corel. I'm not sure why Corel bought Micrografx. I expected them to either subsume Designer into Corel, or keep Designer for "technical drawing" and position Corel DRAW as more of a entry-level drawing tool. They did neither. <br><br>I've been through this orphaned tool problem twice now - first with Designer, and second with FreeHand. Both of them are superior to their direct competition (Corel and Illustrator, respectively), but both are evidently doomed to play "Betamax" to the competitors "VHS." Frankly, I wish that both Corel and Adobe would release the orphaned product's source code into the wild, maybe under the Creative Commons license, and see if the open source crowd would be interested in updating the apps. You're right...it will never happen - but a guy can dream... There's way more to this than you might realize. Designer 1.0 (and it's forerunner, In*A*Vision) were really nothing more than an app that surfaced the Windows Graphic Design Interface (GDI). Starting with Designer 3.0, the app became a much more robust design tool. I was at Micrografx from 87 through 92. I saw Designer go from a relatively crude tool to a then-state of the art design tool.

Internally, there were huge debates over the direction of the application. I ran Creative Services – the in-house ad agency for the company. As such, we were both employees and users. We would go to the developers and say “we want Designer to do ______” and they would usually tell us why we were crazy and why it was impossible to do what we wanted. When we complained that if you took a drawing and stretched and scaled it several times it would lose accuracy, the response was “well…don't do that.” Frustrating. Eventually, Corel released their Corel DRAW! application, and it did all the things Designer didn't (that we'd requested). The response from the developers? They claimed that the Corel code was poorly written kludges – not worth of Micrografx.

The sad part was that Designer WAS a vastly superior tool, with better features (and better code), than Corel. The turning point was when the company pre-announced Designer 4.0 – and then slipped the delivery date. That torpedoed sales and triggered massive layoffs. After I left, the company lost more focus, getting into kids software (Crayola, Hallmark Card Studio, etc.) and eventually sold out to Corel. I'm not sure why Corel bought Micrografx. I expected them to either subsume Designer into Corel, or keep Designer for “technical drawing” and position Corel DRAW as more of a entry-level drawing tool. They did neither.

I've been through this orphaned tool problem twice now – first with Designer, and second with FreeHand. Both of them are superior to their direct competition (Corel and Illustrator, respectively), but both are evidently doomed to play “Betamax” to the competitors “VHS.” Frankly, I wish that both Corel and Adobe would release the orphaned product's source code into the wild, maybe under the Creative Commons license, and see if the open source crowd would be interested in updating the apps. You're right…it will never happen – but a guy can dream…

]]> By: Neuron http://blog.grokmedia.com/2009/01/10/the-five-stages-of-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Neuron Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:51:01 +0000 http://blog.grokmedia.com/?p=307#comment-208 The reality is that Micrografx did know better than all the rest how to write Windows graphics software. Maybe your marketing guys did not do their job properly. 8 years after its release, Designer 9 performs much better on my Vista machine (with some creative installation maneuvers) than the most recent release of Designer from Corel (Designer X4). Have your tried pasting from the clipboard into Designer X4? Except for the simplest objects, you will get garbage. After being disappointed greatly by Designer 10, 12, and now X4, I have promised myself that I will no longer support this product from Corel. What is the point? I still revert to Designer 9 and will continue to do so until it completely stops functioning on newer Windows operating systems. It is really too bad; Micrografx Designer truly was a wonderful product. Its intuitive features and functionalities I believe are unmatched by most other graphics programs out there. Sure, now out of date, maybe it does not have the latest cool features, but it still gets plenty of use on my machine. I would do anything to have a true new version of Designer. I would even settle for getting my hands on the source code :) but I know that is not going to happen!!! The reality is that Micrografx did know better than all the rest how to write Windows graphics software. Maybe your marketing guys did not do their job properly. 8 years after its release, Designer 9 performs much better on my Vista machine (with some creative installation maneuvers) than the most recent release of Designer from Corel (Designer X4). Have your tried pasting from the clipboard into Designer X4? Except for the simplest objects, you will get garbage. After being disappointed greatly by Designer 10, 12, and now X4, I have promised myself that I will no longer support this product from Corel. What is the point? I still revert to Designer 9 and will continue to do so until it completely stops functioning on newer Windows operating systems. It is really too bad; Micrografx Designer truly was a wonderful product. Its intuitive features and functionalities I believe are unmatched by most other graphics programs out there. Sure, now out of date, maybe it does not have the latest cool features, but it still gets plenty of use on my machine. I would do anything to have a true new version of Designer. I would even settle for getting my hands on the source code :) but I know that is not going to happen!!!

]]>