Mitch wrote:
(quoting Intuit's CEO)
>>snip "...consumer software vendors such as Intuit have no
>>practical choice but to focus software product
>>development primarily -- if not exclusively -- on
>>software for use with Windows."
>
>In order for me to accept this statement, I'd have to see
>evidence that versions of products for other platforms are
>unprofitable....
and, in a separate message:
>(snip)...
>Secondly, you've got to ask yourself if the people running
>Intuit aren't expressing a serious lack of imagination if
>they unable manage a profit selling a virtual monopoly
>product to an audience numbering in the tens of millions.
I suppose your expressions of frustration with the situation
may be rhetorical. I sympathize with your wishes that
developers foster the growth of other Operating Systems by
developing applications for them, but it isn't reasonable
to expect it of a company like Intuit. Different companies
do have different business objectives, but Investors won't
let a corporation like Intuit target "mere" profitability,
or create products to demonstrate they have imagination.
As does the company I work for, they exist to maximize the
returns of the investors. Harris' statements are completely
in line with that: to make the most money they can with as
little investment and risk as possible.
As Eric stated:
>Maybe because the best way to make money in the software
>business is to write Windows software.
Bingo. It's still a no-brainer for a company with a suite of
consumer products like Intuit that they have to go with the
dominant platform if a dominant platform exists. Once the share
of DOS, Win3.x, and Mac units among the common buyer became
single digits, it didn't make sense to continue investing in
their upgrades. The question a company like Intuit asks itself
is not "Can I build for other platforms profitably?" but "How
do I make the most for the least?" It's a good business position.
The risk, we know, is that they eventually get shutout by Microsoft's
control. But they have to stay with their bread and butter until
their bread and butter don't work, and it's still working pretty
well. Harris' testimony suggests that he recognizes Intuit might
have to change its approach if remedies to Microsoft's control and
unfair tactics aren't made. But if you fashion a company to do a
particular thing well (and Intuit has clearly done what they do well,
based on their market share), then you don't spread yourself thinner
until forced to. It would be fiscally irresponsible to do so. It
could yet happen, but the executives have to judge they're not likely
to get remedies from the antitrust suit - which they're not yet ready
to say.
Lynn
(standard disclaimer)