Still on schedule for release today?

Tony

 Thanks for your post, I always welcome direct input from IG staff. With regards to the webcombo it is not just that it needs to be lightweight but it is missing some core features, which was listed in the old forum. For instance can you add template items to the webcombo? As far as I can tell the webcombo is simply a popup grid with a textbox. I do understand that your finally making the changes via the aikido front, I just wish it was started earlier. My main gripe is that you are still catching up to things that should have been done in 2007 and we as "loyal" customers have to wait whilst competition is enjoying more mature control sets from other vendors. What you may need to realise is that customers in practice would like to have one solid vendor to provide them with all their toolsets. When we are paying for our subscription we are in fact starting up a partnership with your company. We have committed our time and money to your toolsets and in return we expect solid, working and regularly updated toolsets. Basically we rely on you to supply us with toolsets that keeps our apps running efficiently, fast and with new features that keeps us up to date with market trends (hope im making sense). We dont want to pay subscription for just minor bug fixes on a yearly basis and thats just what the releases in 2007 felt like. I think the following are mistakes that IG needs to clear up

1) Manage customer expectation and release product roadmaps. If you continually fail to manage customer expectation then unless you release a kick ass volume your always going to get dissapointed customers as we will continue to expect more than what will be delivered. Make this info available to subscribers only if your worried about public disclosure. This is a no brainer and your competition does this FANTASTICALLY well. Check out Tom Anglins blogs on Telerik releases that are months away from completion. It continues to wet the customers appetite which is great.

2) Continue to add feature to existing controls. This will add value to the releases, whilst we wait for Aikido to really take hold. If you decide to invest all your time to Aikido and only fix bugs in the current toolsets, then you will continue to have less to show for each release. We dont want to have to wait months for you to complete Aikido before seeing updates and new features to the current control set.

3) Release more development videos and improve documentation. The videos showcasing typical use cases for your controls is essential and helps to get your customers to understand the full potential of your apps. Use case videos in my opinion are great learning aids so invest more time and try to get them done.

4) Most if not all your customers will be using your toolsets to develop web applications (with regards to the ASP.NET toolset) and not just websites. So what do we want to acheive with your controls? Well quite simply I want to "try" and develop web applications with the feel and responsiveness of win applications. I know this is technically not  100% possible but its what we are trying to acheive. Your controls (including Aikido) so first and foremost attempt to replicate the win form controls. If this was core to the IG thinking then the webcombo and other controls would have been much better. Basically with the current IG toolset can I build a web based version of OUTLOOK copying all its features? The answer currently is no (getting there), and you cant use the excuse of technical limitations as this can easily be achieved with other vendors toolset.

Anyway thats me done, hope you find some of this usefull. I really think point 1 & 2 is essential and most not be overlooked or you will continue to loose subscribers.

To follow up on Michael's post:

Videos would be a great help for sure. Check out some of Mark Miller's (Developer Express) videos for CodeRush and Refactor as examples of what I'd like to see from Infragistics.

For those of you that are switching are considering switching which vendor(s) are you looking at the most? I think it would be a good idea if Infragistics knew who we're looking at as replacements for their toolset. I've been looking at the toolset from Developer Express because I'm a huge fan of their CodeRush and Refactor products. Telerik seems to be the most often named vendor so far.

On a positive note the turn around time from your support team seems to be improving. I've submitted items recently WbS3255 which was answered by Mobeen and WDW1 which was answered by Neeraj. Please pass along my thanks to these folks for their assistance.

ZackJones said:

For those of you that are switching are considering switching which vendor(s) are you looking at the most?

I think using Infragistics' forums to promote their competition is in exceedingly bad taste.

Edward McCarroll said:

I think using Infragistics' forums to promote their competition is in exceedingly bad taste.

 I agree, promoting other vendors on this forum would be bad form (I hope I have not been directly doing so in my previous posts). I think its OK to express your concerns and opinions about IG as this in the long run will help them develop some really amazing tools. I think a healthy comparison which is aimed at expressing areas in which you think IG can improve is as far as we should go.

Michael, Zach, [anyone]

There is a grey area between comparing features and promoting competitors, and in my (never-humble) opinion, this thread has gone further than I think appropriate.  I would suggest that the grey area has been deeply penetrated when someone states:

  "<ThisCompetitor> { has | is | does } <ThusAndSuch>."

I would prefer statements in the form:

   "Competing companies { have | are | do } <ThusAndSuch>."

Statements of the former type might be more appropriately put into emails or private messages to the IG staff members who have so conspicuously contributed to this thread.

Michael Josiah said:

I personally think it would be quite helpful for IG to know which competitor has a feature set that we find appealing.

For purposes of this discussion, it is necessary to discuss the features, but not the companies.

As Howard has shown us, there are appropriate forums for the "Which is better?" discussion.

Edward McCarroll said:

Michael, Zach, [anyone]

There is a grey area between comparing features and promoting competitors, and in my (never-humble) opinion, this thread has gone further than I think appropriate.  I would suggest that the grey area has been deeply penetrated when someone states:

  "<ThisCompetitor> { has | is | does } <ThusAndSuch>."

I would prefer statements in the form:

   "Competing companies { have | are | do } <ThusAndSuch>."

Statements of the former type might be more appropriately put into emails or private messages to the IG staff members who have so conspicuously contributed to this thread.

I disagree on this point. I think it depends on the context. We all know who the three big name competitors are, its no secret. I personally think it would be quite helpful for IG to know which competitor has a feature set that we find appealing. This allows them to investigate, research and see if its something they want to include in their own product line. I think the line has to be drawn when people try to PROMOTE other vendors which I unintentionally might have done. I dont think we should be shy when mentioning other competitors I just think we need to do it in an appropriate manner. That aside lets not get distracted from the side topic. IG what are your thoughts on my previous comments regarding customer expection etc.