Why did Borland fail?
quora.com
Why did Borland fail?
1–10 of 269 posts
Re: Why did Borland fail?
#2You could ask the same question about companies such as Novell or Sun.
Re: Why did Borland fail?
#3Compilers used to be something you paid money for. It took a while, but open source and I would say gcc in particular killed that.
It's funny how gcc was around for a long time, but it was only in the 2000s that cash cow compilers started dying. I think that coincides a bit with Linux and OS X becoming popular for developers. For example, it wasn't until 2005 that Microsoft started providing a VS express SKU.
You see Linux start to kill old school commercial Unix (like Sun) around the same time. Probably the same trend.
Re: Why did Borland fail?
#4You could ask the same question about companies such as Novell or Sun.
Sun ignored the rise of commodity hardware. They were relying on the Internet and Wall Street bubble in the late 90's. When those both popped, a Sun took a big hit.
Anyway, why does answering this help with Borland?
Re: Why did Borland fail?
#5You could ask the same question about companies such as Novell or Sun.
Sun ignored the rise of commodity hardware. They were relying on the Internet and Wall Street bubble in the late 90's. When those both popped, a Sun took a big hit. Anyway, why does answering this help with Borland?
Sun also had an overpriced compiler, to go with the overpriced Unix running on overpriced hardware. Then it saw these replaced with free, free, and cheaper products, respectively.
Re: Why did Borland fail?
#6Compilers used to be something you paid money for. It took a while, but open source and I would say gcc in particular killed that. It's funny how gcc was around for a long time, but it was only in the 2000s that cash cow compilers started dying. I think that coincides a bit with Linux and OS X becoming popular for developers. For example, it wasn't until 2005 that Microsoft started providing a VS express SKU. You see…
I remember in the 90s advocating for things like gcc and the absolute scorn I would receive. "A free compiler!!! What kind of crap must that be??". You paid for compilers, you paid for your version control, you paid for your bug tracker, and that was that.
Interestingly, at that company (a defense contractor) it was the government more than anything that changed that attitude. There were a lot of projects initiated by the DoD designed to test whether Linux and other open software were a good choice. Attitudes slowly came around.
And it (paid=good) is not an entirely unfounded position. There was some really bad OS software, and Visual Studio is still top by some measures (quality of the debugger). But the amount of pain noncompliance of the VS compiler brought was just frustrating. And if you want really fast code on x86 it still makes sense to buy the Intel compilers (C++ and Fortran).
Re: Why did Borland fail?
#7See Wikipedia on where Phillipe's successes have been and is doing today: a smart watch running 2 yrs per charge. His horolog tech is being pursued by at least two Swiss firms in the Jura. 'Phillipe the Phoenix` is a facile adaptor I admire.
Re: Why did Borland fail?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sun ignored the rise of commodity hardware. They were relying on the Internet and Wall Street bubble in the late 90's. When those both popped, a Sun took a big hit. Anyway, why does answering this help with Borland?
Sun also had an overpriced compiler, to go with the overpriced Unix running on overpriced hardware. Then it saw these replaced with free, free, and cheaper products, respectively.
Sun made its money from hardware. I never worked anywhere that used Sun's compilers. It was always gcc.
Re: Why did Borland fail?
#9You could ask the same question about companies such as Novell or Sun.
Sun ignored the rise of commodity hardware. They were relying on the Internet and Wall Street bubble in the late 90's. When those both popped, a Sun took a big hit. Anyway, why does answering this help with Borland?
> Anyway, why does answering this help with Borland?
It would be interesting to explore whether or not there are any commonalities in terms of what happened to Sun, Novell, Borland, etc. And if there are, it might be interesting, in turn, to ask if any of those lessons would be useful to contemporary software companies (especially startups, given the audience here at HN).
I suspect that there are some common factors that could be found, but I don't have a good feel for what they are off-hand, aside from falling back on cliches or tautologies.
Re: Why did Borland fail?
#10I used Delphi for more tan 10 years, so this is what I believe it went wrong:
* They lost Anders Hejlsberg
* Free compilers got aceptable.
* Lack of back compatibility, new VCL components from one version weren't compatible with older ones, every new versión require to biy the new components.
* To expensive.
* No new books to learn Delphi, they are to old.