I just read the MacWeek article entitled, “Mathematica still on track.” I am bothered when companies decide to dump the Macintosh because of “market share” issues. Unfortunately, we unsuspecting masses don’t realize that we’re being subjected to a maze of half-truths and twisted numbers. Benjamin Disraeli is credited with saying that there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. I’ve found the last part of that maxim to be true. As an Engineer I’ve seen Autodesk go from supporting Unix, Macintosh, and three different MS Windows with its AutoCAD product to supporting only Windows NT and 95. Their reason? Statistics. If I recall correctly, they stated that something like 80% of their users were on Windows, leaving only 20% with other platforms. But how many users does 20% represent? 10 people or 10,000,000 people? If the product still sells and there’s literally thousands of users, how can you say that 20% isn’t enough? It’s so easy to dismiss a percentage. The unspoken motive is profits. All of these companies which drop users by the thousands are after what they think is the “easy money.” Corporate cutbacks and restructuring often seem to come down to performance only on paper, with bonuses in the pockets of the marketing “geniuses” who have managed to put someone out of a job and kill off products. Even if the Macintosh department carries its own weight, somebody is convinced that killing it will make the bottom line numbers look more appealing, usually through statistics. Interestingly, Autodesk’s main competitor, Bentley Systems, still supports multiple platforms, including the Macintosh. They claim that less than 10% of their efforts go into porting between platforms (see http://www.bentley.com/news/96q4/unix.htm). An interesting statistic. It’s easy to argue my notions by reminding me that development costs money. Sure it does, but none of the companies on our “black list” have publicly stated that they weren’t making any money or that they were losing money with their Macintosh products. If such is the case, I can understand their decisions—the marketing people would be crazy to do otherwise. But how many are just looking to increase their status in the company or want even larger returns on investments? How about that kind of information as truth in advertising? If there isn’t enough profit motive for you, fine, simply say so. But don’t bamboozle us by blaming the customer and pretending that there’s zero demand. To wit: “Our customers decided the issue for us. We were just reacting to their behavior.” Sadly, it wasn’t long ago that when a company cut its product lines and dropped customers that the press was aflurry with articles of financial woes. Now it’s seen as “smart business.” It’s ironic, especially since we readers never seem to learn from our own short histories. I will continue to think poorly of companies which cut off users under the guise of “consolidation” and it would be great if the press started reporting some of the more interesting statistics such as profits and losses for the Macintosh versions of a product. Until that happens, we will continue to fight an uphill battle and even a status quo mindset. To borrow again from Prime Minister Disraeli, “As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.” Matt Warner

Page Last Updated Fri, Dec 10, 1999