3 ms·
There should more to this story.. If their product was that much better (it clearly was) there is no logical reason to not also price it 1000$ and it would hav
by manquer 10y ago
There should more to this story..
If their product was that much better (it clearly was) there is no logical reason to not also price it 1000$ and it would have still sold almost the same. considering the 100x speed increase it probably have sold at 2000$ almost the same as a premium compiler.
Something else made Borland sell it that cheap, either competition was going to release the same boost or they were reaching a new larger segment entirely , i don't think it was about just being lower cost with extra features
- cyberferret 10y ago> there is no logical reason to not also price it 1000$ and it would have still sold almost the same Maybe not. In my case, I was just out of school in the 80's and would never be able to have afforded a $1000+ compiler. When Turbo Pascal came out at that price point, I jumped on it. It was my chance to do some 'real' programming at a budget friendly price. Even IBM's Macro Assembler at that time was several hundred dollars. I would credit Borland and providing the launchpad for thousands and thousands of students, hobbyists and amateur enthusiasts to start their programming careers, who never would have otherwise. My first program I sold for $$$ was written in Turbo Pascal.
- cyberferret 10y agoCorrection: "I would credit Borland *for providing the launchpad..." And in thinking about what I wrote above, I seriously believe that if it wasn't for Borland bringing out a $69 compiler all those years ago, I would be in a totally different profession today. It seriously was the catalyst for me becoming a programmer.