plinehan wrote:

>
>
> That's what was meant by the other poster
> talking about the "CA" approach?
>
> Why do that to a product that's making money,
> albeit not in the grotesque quantities that
> seemed to be de rigeur in the late 90's?
>
> What was the rationale behind "sunsetting" IB?

Borland (Inprise at that time) was in red, fired its CEO and hired Dale
Fuller as new one. In November 1999 he was on board 2-3 months busy
analyzing the company structure of business, figuring out how to quickly
squeeze 20%-40% more profit from each division without additional
investments. This would not work for IB (when you're a small player in
already divided market, you can't get in the limelight spot without a
lot of money and above all, not quickly). So, the rationale was IMHO if
it can't generate more money by more profit, it will do that by having
less expenses (i.e. no development expenses).

best regards
Pavel Cisar