again, you got the wrong part of the message.. I am not saying that new features will lead to "ruin" ... I am saying that a vendor spreading their resources thin into areas of a market place they have no experience with will lead to quality issues on their main/core business where all their expertise rests...
IRT/MD: best charting and analysis package avail to retail... core expertise... analysis .... regardless of the quality of their development team, if they dont have the expertise for creating a DOM/Chart Trading (basically focusing on trade management) they will have to divert resources from the charting side and as such their development/progress of the charting side will suffer... investment will go into something that wont yield revenues right away..
please realize that programmers are usually only implementing code, it takes a different type of mind to think through the requirements for what would be needed for trading, etc that they would implement...
I dont mean to offend all the programmer/traders on the forum.. just what I have experienced myself and seeing from successful development teams bringing a product to market..
IRT/MD used to be lifetime license a long, long time ago.. I believe around v7... they switch to subscription based because in order to continue to grow and develop a platform, investments has to be made... those cant come from a finite and limited revenue stream that can only be maintained by expanding the user base... hence whey the switch to subscriptions. There is a reason why CQG//BLP/etc (basically professional platforms) are subs... innovation, ongoing support and development costs $$$...
I dont see how using NT for trade management and IRT/MD is a hassle... I mean, I used to do it and I would have 6 DOM's open with no issues, and IRT on the other two screens...
running both consumes very little resources, I assume of course that you have at the very least 3GB if 32b or 8GB if 64b... I mean, new PCs are under $1K with more resources than one would know what to do with... and having separate programs, IMO, protects you against failures...
what happens if IRT/MD crashes (not that it ever has for me) and you are in the middle of a trade, which goes against you by the time you get back online? now, what happens with NT7 if the same thing happen? keep in mind that orders for NT7 are held on your PC, not the exchange.
you get the idea... to me it is best to separate things.. my trade plan addresses all those issues that could present themselves and I ensure that those things are separate... and I am sorry, but NT7($1K to $1.5K) one time fee and IRT/MD about $2K/yr.. is not expensive if you are trading for profit and properly capitalized....
personally, I prefer tradevec now for my order management, but that is a whole different ball of wax... so keeping it out of this discussion.
The following user says Thank You to sysot1t for this post:
If you read my previous posts, you can see I am in agreement with you. I would rather that things stay as they are. As you have pointed out, the customer service and pace of updates are unbelievable. I have never encountered anything like it, not just with regard to trading either.
I am not a fan of NT, so you don't need to lecture me on the shortcomings off that program. It seems the vast majority on this board uses NT, and I can't understand why. It's flexible (if you're a programmer) and cheap, but it is far too unreliable for my liking. And as you say, the built-in functionality is severely lacking compared to IRT.
My point was merely that I could easily see IRT/MD becoming the de facto standard for retail traders. Their programming language, RTL, is the most intuitive I've used and, as I stated in a previous post, it is my favorite charting program.
I am not a programmer, therefore I don't know how much work it would be to add more advanced trading features and the possibility of it affecting the stability or resource usage of the program. My concern would be that the customer service and rate of innovation would suffer. They could possible set up a new company, with separate customer service, that would manage a version with trade capabilities. But I guess that's not really realistic.
But, again, I am not advocating this. I was simply stating that I could see why @monpere, and probably a lot of others like him, would want it to happen. Like I said before, I use CQG IC for trading and I have no desire of using IRT/MD for that purpose. Like you, I would rather keep things as they are. But if they could implement trading functions without it affecting the quality of both the application and their customer service, I wouldn't be against it.
Last edited by Lornz; April 24th, 2011 at 09:52 AM.
not lecturing you, just providing more thought for discussions and exposing my thoughts; I welcome open mind discussions on any subjects and this one interests me.. so please dont be offended in any way as I was not picking on you, and hopefully you did not feel that way... the same goes for @josh... my intention is not to lecture, but rather debate the points..
and I agree.. IRT/MD is great for data analysis and charting... and CQGIC is a magnificent program with an amazing execution network.. a steep learning curve for me at a cost of about $5-10K before I would use it live, so that is the main reason I dont delve into it...and also because I like tradevec, it is simple and cost effective and it supports multiple TT FCM's accounts..
I own MC/NT7/AmiBroker and a few others, and to me I always go back to IRT/MD and Tradevec for my OE..
If I ever do this full time I would 100% look into CQGIC and just spent the resources needed to master it across the board... it has features that are just amazing if you are managing 6-10 markets at a time actively...
I'm not offended. It was a poor choice of words, it's really late/early in Norway right now and my command of the English language is rapidly deteriorating. I simply meant you were preaching to the choir, I am in full agreement with you.
Yes, CQG is expensive if you don't have a decent cash flow while subscribing, but it is also excellent! I can't recommend them enough. And to be fair, you only need NT to crash a couple of times, which it will, to cover the costs. I don't like having my orders stored locally. And compared to other comparablel solutions, I actually think CQG is relatively "cheap".
I haven't tried TradeVec, but have heard some good things about it. It seems like good value...(?)
Well, whatever program you're running for placing orders, if it crashes, you're in line for a phone call to your broker. Whether your charting and orders are in one crashed program or whether the order program crashes, you're in trouble.
As for local orders, this depends on your broker. In most cases, the order is at the broker or the exchange. In most cases, the only thing local is the cancelling of the other order that is not hit (as when your stop is hit, your take profit should be cancelled).
And yes, I know you are not arguing, and I hope you realize that I am not either--just information exchange, and we can be educated by each other in the process!
First, spreading resources thin does not necessarily lead to bad quality. Bad programmers lead to bad quality. And, I am a programmer.
Second, we don't work form I/RT, we don't know if implementing a DOM, or chart trader would spread their development resources thin, or not.
Third, as a programmer, from what I've seen of the I/RT product, all the base functionality for these features are already there, all they need is to write a user interface.
Fourth, they would not be developing anything, they would just be implementing technology already developed and implemented by numerous other vendors. That's why similarly, we can get many cheap drugs from Canada, all the initial development resources where spent by the American companies who first developed the specific drug.
So, if they commit to the idea, they should be simple implementations. The business potential of adding these features far outweighs the few man hours of coding required. Their reward/risk would be greater the 2:1
You are correct, NT's problem is, in the race to catch up to the rest of the charting world, they forgot what their core strength was, and as a result their core strength has stagnated. NT's ATM's are good, but they could be far better. I bet you if I/RT decides to tackle ATM or chart trader, it will be better then NT, because it will have the leap frog effect. When programmers implement existing tech already fully developed by other products, they tend to enhance it, because the initial development effort is already done.
You can't make the correlation that, because NT did badly at trying to increase their feature set outside of their core strength, then every company who tries will do just as badly. NT did it badly because they just did it badly.
Last edited by monpere; April 24th, 2011 at 08:02 AM.
Favorite Futures: Emini's, Grains, Gold and Currency Futures
Posts: 1 since Jan 2010
Thanks: 0 given,
Topics for Webinar
I think a lot of the topics I would like to see discussed have already been captured by the members here to date. I am fairly new to evaluating Investor RT, having spent considerably more time looking into Market Delta. That said, now that I have started to look into Investor RT, I am a little confused about the relationship, if any, between them and Market Delta. Please correct me if I am wrong, but both Charting Platforms look a lot a like, and one of the key selling points of Market Delta, as I understand it, is the Foot Print capability, which as I learn more about Investor RT, it can provide as well.
So I would like to better understand what the differences are between these two platforms, as I noticed the Chad has offered to take any questions about "both" platforms. Thank you.
did you said you are a bad programmer?! just messing with you... I agree, but at the same time when good programmers have to deliver multiple projects at the same time with the same level of priority... something suffers.. period.
yes and no... I have my own opinions about the canada thing, but focusing on the technology.. if the functionality they are looking to use has a patent (TT DOM anyone?) that becomes more costly, and as such they would have to create a new way to address what we would call a simple requirement, or incur the licensing costs.. in the end, what did they gained and was it worth the cost of acquisition for that given revenue stream? I dont think the Reward ratio would be 2:1
you are missing the point of the last argument... first, yes... ANY company that deviates from their core without the appropriate level of resources will be doom for failure unless they are bringing something of value in terms of competitive advantage that will differentiate them from the rest of the companies in the market place..
NT did things badly when they moved from a dom/scalper tool back in '06 to an all inclusive pkg IMO because they tried to cover too many things too fast and spread their resources thin while changing their price model and impacting as such their revenue stream. simple.
better yet, look at CSCO... they bought Pure Digital(aka Flip Video Makers) for $560M, to augment their digital media line... this was back in 09 I think..now they are exiting because they are going to re-focus on network.. the so called new market had very low profit margins.. meanwhile they spent about $1.5B to enter it...
perfect example of a company with more than ample resources, deviating from their core, and their bottom line getting impacted... I can also bring your attention to SUNW... moved into more markets than it should, ended up getting swalled by oracle (a great deal btw) and a legacy was now lost...
anyhow, we should all get back to the subject of what we want to see on the webinar
we should open a separate thread, @Big Mike, please separte our comments into a new thread to keep the discussion going if you would please.
as to ORCL, I would admit they are a company that can monetize pretty much anything ... but their portfolio is dysfunctional at best ... acquisitions would at times overlap .. and their integration faulters half the other times... and it is all mainly because the CEO as you state is super competitive and tries to expand into markets he at times has no clues, and of course he succeeds to certain extend because having a super big fat checkbook does help when it comes to acquiring the given expertise...
however, there are very, and I do mean very few companies that can do what ORCL does...