BUT same goes for CQC I guess. Its pretty much a one or two man show as I understand it. They both have good products. I would like to see them both be GREAT products.
That's why we concentrate so hard on product stability. When the product is stable, and the support is primarily how would I do this or that, then the user community can help itself to a very large degree because often end users know better how to do this or that than we do, because we don't have that piece of equipment or that combination of equipment ourselves, but a user often does. So we mostly only have to get involved when it's an actual problem, the bulk of which tend to be network related for the most part, not problems in the product.
So many software companies have X number of more testing and support people for every engineer, where X can be pretty large, which is crazy to me. If you take product stability very seriously, that shouldn't be necessary. They just give up on creating a truely robust product and deal with it reactively instead of proactively. But, unless you started from the ground level with that kind of approach, it's almost impossible to get there after the fact, since it would often require almost a page one rewrite of the product, and almost no company can ever afford to do that. You can't fix the foundation, but you can't stop adding more floors to the building to keep up features-wise, the end result being a kind of shakey building.