Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Let's Talk STAAD-PRO

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fountain Conner [mailto:fconner(--nospam--at)]
> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 1999 1:48 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: Re: Let's Talk STAAD-PRO
> But...  if STAAD is so bad, how is it that they can have a
> full-page ad on
> page 3 of April's Modern Steel Construction?

"If Microsoft is so bad, why do they dominate the media in every respect?

> If STAAD is so
> bad, it seems
> the engineering community would boycott the company.

"If Microsoft is so bad, the computing world would boycott the company."

> Does anyone have anything good to say about STAAD?  They must be doing
> something right, if it's only marketing.

Mostly, I think it is marketing.

Everywhere I've ever worked, STAAD was there. They hold the largest
market-share, if not the majority. Therefore, their balloon rises the

In fact, my point, in bringing up Microsoft--which it cannot be denied makes
buggy products; I have one on my computer at home, called "Windows 98," you
might have heard of it--is that market-share plus media/advertising presence
equals an intertia that is not easily overcome by less-important facts like
quality of the product.

For Research Engineers, or any company, to advertise it's product as having
the "most market presence" is disingenuous. For years, GM has had the
"biggest market presence" among world automakers, yet no one would translate
that as "best products on the market."

For years, though, GM products had HORRENDOUS problems from the consumer
standpoint, that were not addressed until they, along with U.S. carmakers in
general, had REAL competition that threatened their livelihood.

Up until now, neither Microsoft nor Research Engineers has had this, and
that is a great reason why their products are not "all that," despite the
marketing hype.

As I've said before, many of the bugs in STAAD are documented and
well-known, yet Research Engineers' corporate philosophy is "as long as they
keep buying the product, we have no reason to improve it." Why should they?
Altruism aside, they're in business to make money.

Just a few of my thoughts in response to your reasonable question.