Forum Posts Feed
ADM: Eric's Resignation from Advanced data Management
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Cassius
Mar 9, 2007 at 08:33 PM
S.D. said, “A buyer? Are you joking?”
Actually, I’ve been thinking that a sale of ADM was highly likely, especially since I read that it’s Web site was down.
Certainly ADM should not have charged for beta use/testing and should have kept at least Beta testers informed. We don’t really know what was/is happening with Eric. Remember the original Outliners site run by Dave Winer? Dave left the company he originally founded because of illness. The company` was supposed to continue hosting the Outliners site, but decided not to and with no warning, shut it down. Who knows how long it was before Dave learned of this and arranged to have it hosted on a Harvard server. That server’s problems were probably due to problems that Universities have with students’ use/misuse. Yet many blamed Dave for the frustrations we all experienced.
-c
Posted by Cassius
Mar 9, 2007 at 09:03 PM
Cassius (me) forgot the main reason he posted the previous message:
S.D. said, “A buyer? Are you joking?”
I, Cassius, intended to give a counterexample, namely, the Lexis-Nexis acquisition of NoteMap from CaseSoft.
-c
(Wondering about the name? His former management was Caesar.)
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Mar 9, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Stephen, I think what I dscribed, while a vision, isone based largely on existing ADM features. You may recall that at times when people would raise questions about calendars, or PIM like features, Eric’s response would be along the lines that this did not fit into the official vision, which was that of the world-wide outline,
Increasingly, under the influence of various people, including yourself, the bread and butter features managed to get into themix, and we heard less and less about the world-wide outline.
Unfortunately, multiple un-do’s never made the cut. I agree with you that that was a big mistake. I am not sure to do have implemented them would have been so hard, but I do think that Eric somewhat arbitrarily decided it wasn’t going to happen so it didn’t. I think that explained the foot dragging re that feature—for which there is considerable demand; these days it is like standard equipment.
I think you are probably right again when you say things spun out of control probably at the point where it was necessary to get a more robust data engine, and to do significant recoding. I am told that the reasons for this stem from the fact that the original programmer wasn’t using the latest programming technology—there are people more aware of this aspect of the issue than I am who can add to what Ihave said, and correct any misunderstanding on my part.
But there’a question—and that is why did these needs for fundamental changes cause things to spin out of control? It was not a foregone conclusion that spinning out occur. My answer is that, in part, lack of forthright, timely communication concurrently began to erode trust among the trusteed testers, and that this in turn started to seep into the broader market place.
Erics responses were problematic. On occasions when we might get two or three new builds in as many days, he would write glowingly “and still they come.” But when we would go for weeks with no news, there was just that—no news.
The need for recoding and a new data engine revealed another weakness in the business plan—there was no allowance for contingencies. Communication, already mentioned was one example. But another was having trials run out before the final version was released, and having people pay for betas.
I do not think it was ever the intent of Eric or Arne to have people pay for beta. But I think it occurred when the delays were just so damn long in getting a finished version. There was no contingency plan for how to handle that if it should occur (refund money, extend trial period, etc.). By the time this problem occurred it was either ignored, or just one more detail that got stacked up, but not acted upon.
Re finding a buyer—I suspect that a buyer with sufficient capital and a strong programming team could have a winner on its hands with ADM. I do not think that it is unrealistic to think this. ADM might sell for a bargain, although much of the work is already done—sort of like the stock that is trading below book value and p/e ratio, yet is a quality stock.
Stephen you have failed to show where my thinking is either unrealistic or scary. I think I have reflected a balanced view of probabilities, keeping in mind how little we actually know other than the observable behaviours.
What we have, I submit, is a small two-person company that ran into unexpected challenges, and was hamstrung by poor management and lack of contingency planning. Piss-poor communication was only one aspect of the poor management.
Another may also have been a tendency on the part of one of the partners (Eric) to allow his own visions and preconceptions to drive the day-to-day decision making in a manner that was ultimately weakening to the overall business, and disasterous once the business hit some real turbulence. Web searches on Eric give very little if any evidence that his forte was business, but ample documentation that he is an idea person and a visionary. In retrospect, I suspect Arne needed to be much more hands-on, and to have Eric working out of his Vancouver office, rather than in far-away China.
Daly
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>>I imagine, based on nothing much more than wishful thinking, that ADM may
>>return
>more to its English-speakking roots, and that visions of a world-wide
>>outline
>notwithstanding, more emphasis will be placed on the nuts and bolts of
>>developing
>and refining an integrated information capture and management
>>system based on
>both outline tags, and incorporating capabilities such as
>>calendar, alarms, etc.
>that will support its main mission.
>
>>Whether this will happen under Arne’s
>ownership, or whether he will seek a
>>buyer, is unknown.
>
>A buyer? Are you joking?
>
>
>What you describe is a vision, not a product. The feature set, in principle, is nice,
>but most features are implemented imperfectly. Certainly the development of
>information products in the last couple of years has underscored the importance of
>multiple undo. I’m clearly not the only consumer who thinks this feature today is
>essential. Yet, judging by the foot-dragging, ADM cannot implement such a command
>without fundamental changes.
>
>Things “spun out of control,” it seems, upon
>discovering that extensive revisions needed to be made to the database. I imagine it
>was discovered that a great deal of the work must be redone to accommodate the changes.
>The developers didn’t want to hear about these problems until it was too late.
>
>I can
>appreciate that Arne cannot simply abandon ADM. He cannot simply abandon ADM, no
>matter how much he would like to. His erstwhile partner might be outside the reach of
>the long - arm statutes of the law in China, but Arne is not. I’m sure he feels
>responsible to do something about the betas that have been paid for. This practice may
>or not constitute fraud, depending on details we don’t know about, but it is certainly
>breach of contract.
>
>The lack of realism by you and some of your co-thinkers, Daly, is
>a bit scary.
>
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Mar 9, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Stephen, I think what I dscribed, while a vision, isone based largely on existing ADM features. You may recall that at times when people would raise questions about calendars, or PIM like features, Eric’s response would be along the lines that this did not fit into the official vision, which was that of the world-wide outline,
Increasingly, under the influence of various people, including yourself, the bread and butter features managed to get into themix, and we heard less and less about the world-wide outline.
Unfortunately, multiple un-do’s never made the cut. I agree with you that that was a big mistake. I am not sure to do have implemented them would have been so hard, but I do think that Eric somewhat arbitrarily decided it wasn’t going to happen so it didn’t. I think that explained the foot dragging re that feature—for which there is considerable demand; these days it is like standard equipment.
I think you are probably right again when you say things spun out of control probably at the point where it was necessary to get a more robust data engine, and to do significant recoding. I am told that the reasons for this stem from the fact that the original programmer wasn’t using the latest programming technology—there are people more aware of this aspect of the issue than I am who can add to what Ihave said, and correct any misunderstanding on my part.
But there’a question—and that is why did these needs for fundamental changes cause things to spin out of control? It was not a foregone conclusion that spinning out occur. My answer is that, in part, lack of forthright, timely communication concurrently began to erode trust among the trusteed testers, and that this in turn started to seep into the broader market place.
Erics responses were problematic. On occasions when we might get two or three new builds in as many days, he would write glowingly “and still they come.” But when we would go for weeks with no news, there was just that—no news.
The need for recoding and a new data engine revealed another weakness in the business plan—there was no allowance for contingencies. Communication, already mentioned was one example. But another was having trials run out before the final version was released, and having people pay for betas.
I do not think it was ever the intent of Eric or Arne to have people pay for beta. But I think it occurred when the delays were just so damn long in getting a finished version. There was no contingency plan for how to handle that if it should occur (refund money, extend trial period, etc.). By the time this problem occurred it was either ignored, or just one more detail that got stacked up, but not acted upon.
Re finding a buyer—I suspect that a buyer with sufficient capital and a strong programming team could have a winner on its hands with ADM. I do not think that it is unrealistic to think this. ADM might sell for a bargain, although much of the work is already done—sort of like the stock that is trading below book value and p/e ratio, yet is a quality stock.
Stephen you have failed to show where my thinking is either unrealistic or scary. I think I have reflected a balanced view of probabilities, keeping in mind how little we actually know other than the observable behaviours.
What we have, I submit, is a small two-person company that ran into unexpected challenges, and was hamstrung by poor management and lack of contingency planning. Piss-poor communication was only one aspect of the poor management.
Another may also have been a tendency on the part of one of the partners (Eric) to allow his own visions and preconceptions to drive the day-to-day decision making in a manner that was ultimately weakening to the overall business, and disasterous once the business hit some real turbulence. Web searches on Eric give very little if any evidence that his forte was business, but ample documentation that he is an idea person and a visionary. In retrospect, I suspect Arne needed to be much more hands-on, and to have Eric working out of his Vancouver office, rather than in far-away China.
Daly
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>>I imagine, based on nothing much more than wishful thinking, that ADM may
>>return
>more to its English-speakking roots, and that visions of a world-wide
>>outline
>notwithstanding, more emphasis will be placed on the nuts and bolts of
>>developing
>and refining an integrated information capture and management
>>system based on
>both outline tags, and incorporating capabilities such as
>>calendar, alarms, etc.
>that will support its main mission.
>
>>Whether this will happen under Arne’s
>ownership, or whether he will seek a
>>buyer, is unknown.
>
>A buyer? Are you joking?
>
>
>What you describe is a vision, not a product. The feature set, in principle, is nice,
>but most features are implemented imperfectly. Certainly the development of
>information products in the last couple of years has underscored the importance of
>multiple undo. I’m clearly not the only consumer who thinks this feature today is
>essential. Yet, judging by the foot-dragging, ADM cannot implement such a command
>without fundamental changes.
>
>Things “spun out of control,” it seems, upon
>discovering that extensive revisions needed to be made to the database. I imagine it
>was discovered that a great deal of the work must be redone to accommodate the changes.
>The developers didn’t want to hear about these problems until it was too late.
>
>I can
>appreciate that Arne cannot simply abandon ADM. He cannot simply abandon ADM, no
>matter how much he would like to. His erstwhile partner might be outside the reach of
>the long - arm statutes of the law in China, but Arne is not. I’m sure he feels
>responsible to do something about the betas that have been paid for. This practice may
>or not constitute fraud, depending on details we don’t know about, but it is certainly
>breach of contract.
>
>The lack of realism by you and some of your co-thinkers, Daly, is
>a bit scary.
>
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Mar 10, 2007 at 01:17 AM
Hi Cassius,
I don’t think I know you, so perhaps if I indicate why I think your perceptions on this is unrealistic, I can make my point with greater seeming objectivity than with Daly, whom I know well enough to get irritated with.
So here it is. The Dave Winer matter involved absolutely no legal obligations by Dave. We had no contract with him and no legal right to rely on the continued operation.
ADM licenses were sold through a contract of sale, whether implied, oral, or written. As a partner in ADM, Eric STILL has a DUTY to deliver the product to those paying for it or at least refund the money. This remains true even if he separates himself from the partnership. Even if he negotiates with Arne that Arne will assume all the financial obligations, they remain Eric’s. His terms of separation with Arne is between them, and is no concern for purchasers with uncompleted transactions.
I see also no similarity with CaseSoft. Lexis Nexis bought the whole company. NoteMap was not a highly successful product, but the other products have become legal mainstays. CaseSoft was successful, profitable, and made products just about everyone liked.
Both of these comparisons are so mind boggling to me, that, as I said, the thinking they represent is somewhat scary. Coming from intelligent people, it is chilling. ADM is a product with an unknown number of dissatisfied buyers who have not been given what they contracted for. Who is going to want to take on that obligation? And pay to take it on, no less. The coding must be largely redone. They would be buying an idea, which in any event cannot be patented. If someone wants to build an ADM by another name, they can go ahead, as long as they don’t steal code. Who wants that code?
An honest person would take the greatest precautions about leaving the country and going to China under these circumstances. Customers will readily suspect that he is fleeing his obligations. Whether or not this is the case, an honest person in business would necessarily see that these customers are kept informed.
Cassius wrote:
>S.D. said, “A buyer? Are you joking?”
>
>Actually, I’ve been thinking that a sale of ADM
>was highly likely, especially since I read that it’s Web site was down.
>
>Certainly
>ADM should not have charged for beta use/testing and should have kept at least Beta
>testers informed. We don’t really know what was/is happening with Eric. Remember the
>original Outliners site run by Dave Winer? Dave left the company he originally
>founded because of illness. The company` was supposed to continue hosting the
>Outliners site, but decided not to and with no warning, shut it down. Who knows how long
>it was before Dave learned of this and arranged to have it hosted on a Harvard server.
>That server’s problems were probably due to problems that Universities have with
>students’ use/misuse. Yet many blamed Dave for the frustrations we all
>experienced.
>
>-c