I agree with what you say and I appreciate your input here. This could make
a really great difference for those really wanting to get the most out of
IBO.

What I wonder is if human cloning is far enough along yet so that we could
just make a few dozen of me and then I wouldn't have so many problems of
choosing what I will do with each moment of my day. <g>

I love life and I'm really enjoying having created IBO. I really do wish I
could get things pulled together in a way that would make its power more
readily accessible. I'll give this some consideration.

Regards,
Jason Wharton
CPS - Mesa AZ
http://www.ibobjects.com

-- We may not have it all together --
-- But together we have it all --

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Menardi" <mmenaz@...>
To: <IBObjects@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [IBO] Plans for IBO Help file ....?


Well, Jason, you know I apreciate IBO very much and I've a GSG copy
that worth every dollar it costs, but:
I started using IBO very motivated and, reading around, with the
strong belive that it's a far superior product.
But average people could not have such motivations / had time to
search for the best tool. They simply try a demo / compile the sample
and decide.
IBO native controls are very different in what Delphi programmer is
used to, so I think that a lot of people will give up with something
like "it does not work", "it's too difficult", "it's too complicated
to get even simple work done", "help does not provide enough
information", etc..
Bjørge Sæther had not problem in pay $$$, he is not complaing for IBO
cost, it's frustrated in time wasted and in not having the right
direction from the beginning. I can understand his feelings, were mine
a long time ago. For instance, it took a long time before I discovered
that with IBO help you have to search for the ancestor that introduces
the property to have a much wider description of it...
GSG is, in this regards, not a third party publication, it's IMHO the
"key switching point", it shows you "the right path", and that simple
things can be done the simple way (once you know that way), and for
much sophisticated things there is a simply way too (thanks to the
many, well designed, "real problem solvers" properties).
GSG must be give away for free to everyone, not only to who purcases
the product, and not because it's not a valuable work, but because
without people reading / studing / trying it you will have much less
IBO users and, suppose, IBO customers.
IMHO, there is the need of an "advanced guide", with more
sophisticated situations, that can be charged, not GSG.
thanks
Marco Menardi

--- In IBObjects@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Wharton" <jwharton@i...> wrote:
> > I'm not used to needing a "Getting Started Guide", and if it *is*
> necessary,
> > it should be bundled with the product.
>
> I did offer it in the past as an incentive for those who purchase
the Total
> or Data Access Bundle. Seems there is some text somewhere still left
over
> from that cause people are telling me they expect to get it. That
special
> has expired. (Webmaster, please find where this is coming from.) I
could
> offer the special again I suppose.
>
> But, let me make this point again, I spent a lot of $$ in the
production of
> this high quality piece of documentation. What I am asking for it is
a total
> bargain when people realize they have saved themselves a whole lot
of time
> and effort. In a lot of cases those who are using IBO for free under the
> terms of the Trustware License do opt to purchase the guide and this
is the
> only income I realize from this segment of my customer base. The GSG
> represents an important level of financial contribution people make
to IBO.
>
> There are the economic arguments that giving it away for free would
increase
> sales of bundles, etc. I disagree with this. People in the market
for what
> IBO has to offer are not going to be critically swayed by getting
this guide
> for free. In fact, seeing that there is a high quality guide they
can pay a
> little money for is likely going to be seen as a plus, instead of a
> negative. This means there is a sufficient market for the tool that
it will
> even support a third party publication.
>