info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/04/84)
Date: 3 May 84 18:34 EDT From: Richard Reich <uw-beaver!REICH@NYU-ACF1.ARPA> To: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Subject: Toolbox equates for peons Will some certified developer please place the text of the Toolbox and QD equates files on a host allowing Anonymous FTP's?? I expect I am not the only peon, rejected for CD status by Apple, who believes that they can perhaps actually write a program for the Mac despite Apple's opinion. If the material I'm requesting is protected by copyright or non-disclosure please let me know (and we can work out an accident). Thanks. -r -------
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/09/84)
Date: 8 May 1984 03:27-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle <uw-beaver!POURNE@MIT-MC> Subject: Toolbox equates for peons To: REICH@NYU-ACF1 Cc: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM In-Reply-To: Msg of 3 May 84 18:34 EDT from Richard Reich <REICH at NYU-ACF1.ARPA> Fascin ating, iosn't it. Two of my shills, both highly wualified programmer types, have been rejected as developers. Except for BIG BUSINESS types who get along nicely with the new Apple Image, exactly who HAS BEEN ACCEPTED as a Developer? What are teh criteria? Or is this another -- well, there are terms for it. TI told hobbyistsz and hackers to drop dead, twice. Long live the 99/4A
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/09/84)
Date: Tue 8 May 84 10:59:52-PDT From: STERNLIGHT <uw-beaver!STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL.ARPA> Subject: Re: Toolbox equates for peons To: POURNE@MIT-MC.ARPA, REICH@NYU-ACF1.ARPA Cc: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>" of Tue 8 May 84 00:27:00-PDT Jerry, you're at it again. Because two "of my shills, both highly qualified programmer types, have been rejected as developers" you infer that "BIG BUSINESS types who get along nicely with the new Apple Image" are the main accepted developers. Cowdoody. I have a consulting firm of two, including myself. We are not only certified, but also registered developers (direct access to Apple, electronic mail account, etc.) How did we do it. Simple. We have a product already in existence which has been sold to several buyers of substance, and runs on an existing (IBM PC) machine, and we can prove it to Apple. We have NO image, just product. Nobody ever heard of us except our customers and others in our professional field (economics). We didn't know anybody at Apple nor did we meet anyone there prior to becoming registered developers. We have no vast corporate or financial resources. We're just legitimate developers. But I'll bet Apple is flooded by applications from programmers who say they are developers yet have not got any legitimate product out there. Everyone would LOVE to get the developer discount on hardware and software but only actual developers do. What about 'new' developers who have not yet produced and sold product? I guess they first have to create at least one product and market it successfully before Apple will accept them. Same in your profession. You can say you're a writer all you want but until you've had something published, I'll believe you're a writer; your mother will believe you're a writer, but writers? Isn't it about time you got off your (sometimes virulent) anti-Apple prejudice and took facts for what they were, assuming a legitimate explanation rather than base motives unless and until proven otherwise? --david-- -------
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/09/84)
Date: Tue 8 May 84 12:51:24-PDT From: Chad Leland Mitchell <uw-beaver!M.CHAD@SU-SIERRA.ARPA> Subject: Re: Toolbox equates for peons To: POURNE@MIT-MC.ARPA Cc: M.CHAD@SU-SIERRA.ARPA, info-mac@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>" of Tue 8 May 84 00:27:00-PDT Let us remember what the certified developer program is all about. If one is accepted as a certified developer, one can get hardware at a discount. Period. Without certified developer status, one can still buy Macs and Lisas, and can get Inside Macintosh and all necessary tools. There is a special developer status (something like "registered" I think) which allows you to use electronic mail, etc. for help but that costs and I doubt that many "hackers" would be interested. Apple seems to have a simple formula for accepting certified developers. If it seems that a person/company is likely to use the machines purchased to develop software which will sell or otherwise have wide distribution on the Mac then they qualify. If it seems that the Certified Developer status is going to be used simply to buy cheap machines for personal use, then why should they qualify? The application of this test seems to also follow a simple formula. If you have a company (size >=1) which has developed and marketed any software then you probably qualify. If you have a company (size >=1) which has a plan for some interesting software and some kind of development schedule then you p[robably qualify. If you are an individual with similar qualifications then you probably qualify although not quite as easily. I assume that you don't expect Apple to just give away certified developer status to anyone who wants to buy a machine. That would be equivalent to just placing all hardware on a massive discount (which while we would all like would be improbable as long as they continue to sell every Mac they make as fast as they can ship it). EVERY person I know who 1) Has a company name and has developed and sold software or 2) Demonstrated to Apple that he/she was a very competent programmer with plans for a real product has been granted certified developer status upon applying. Those who have demonstrated competency but had no plans have not been accepted (at least on the first try). Of course if you buy some hardware and start putting a product together and then apply you will probably get accepted with flying colors... Chad -------
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/10/84)
Date: Wed, 9 May 1984 02:39 EDT From: uw-beaver!LEVITT%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA To: "Jerry E. Pournelle" <POURNE@MIT-MC> Subject: Toolbox equates for peons Cc: info-mac%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA In-Reply-To: Msg of 8 May 1984 03:27-EDT from Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC> ...wualified [sic] programmer types, have been rejected as developers. ...exactly who HAS BEEN ACCEPTED as a Developer? What are teh [s ic] criteria? Yes, my sentiments. I joined this list a bit late, and I wondered if there had been an ongoing poll. I know one designer from Ithaca who's been certified for 1+ years, and one Palo Alto insider. But I know various people who've been ignored or rejected. Is this temporary or is it a policy? West coast friends have claimed instant receipt of development tools, even without a business plan. The Apple people seem to know that widespread support for developers is crucial, so they encourage their friends. But some proven east coast software companies have slipped between the cracks, because they've never met an Apple person. Is this just early disorganization, or is it understood that the cost of providing documentation and updates widely is too high? That would seem short sighted.
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/10/84)
Date: Tue 8 May 84 18:49:48-MDT From: Randy Frank <uw-beaver!FRANK@UTAH-20.ARPA> Subject: Re: Toolbox equates for peons To: STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL.ARPA, POURNE@MIT-MC.ARPA, REICH@NYU-ACF1.ARPA Cc: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "STERNLIGHT <STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL.ARPA>" of Tue 8 May 84 16:30:45-MDT This is totally in line with what Apple told us at the recent developers/ consortium meeting. They currently have over 1000 registered developers, and, in order to be able to handle the crowd, have tentatively put a hold on accepting new developers EXCEPT those w/ proven records in developing software. This makes emminent sense to me: everyone and his aunt and uncle seems to want to become a Mac developer. Apple has a choice in diluting the amount of support given to developers by allowing an uncontrolled number of them, or can attempt to qualify developers and provide a higher level of support. It seems that if Apple is interested in seeing software out quickly for the Mac (which certain people such as Mr. Pournelle seem to regularly complain isn't happening fast enough), what they're doing is exactly on target. The last thing that Apple needs to do is waste effort on every random who has a half assed idea for Mac software. The reality of this world is that, especially if the goal is getting software out there quickly, that putting your eggs in the basket of established developers will probably win. This may unfortunately mean that some good new ideas get lost (or more probably delayed). However, the Mac will make it commerically during the next 6 months largely on the basis of the popular existing packages being ported to the Mac. From that perspective what Apple is doing is totally correct. -------
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/10/84)
Date: 9 May 1984 04:27-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle <uw-beaver!POURNE@MIT-MC> Subject: Toolbox equates for peons To: STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL Cc: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM, REICH@NYU-ACF1 In-Reply-To: Msg of Tue 8 May 84 10:59:52-PDT from STERNLIGHT <STERNLIGHT at USC-ECL.ARPA> virulent cow pucky. I don't care a tinkers' damn for or against Apple or any other company. I do care that claims have some basis in reality; that claims to reverence by the hobbyist commuknity be based on something substantial; that claims to some special status have some basis. If IBM had brought out a limited memory, small screen, single drive system with proprietary operating system, charged $150 for the system documents needed to do anything particularly useful with it, helped people put out a bunch of $14.95 to $19.95 books that contain almost no real information (but were almost certainly supported by early copies of and access to the machines prior to the rest of the world getting them): whould IBM have been proclaimed Good Guys? I completely agree: the Mac is fun. For a student with $1000 it's probably a darned good buy for playing about with doing homework, writing letters, etc. You will still need a real calculator for your desk since the Mac one doesn't even have elementary functions; you'll have to wait if you want to load up basic and use that; you will have to find a printer if you want to turn in the homework; but it's a nice buy. For "the rest of us" who don't know much about cmputers and have been waiting to get one until something very useful and easy to use came out, I might have a different recommendation at $3500 (by the time you get a useful configuration). It was not me who put forth the Macintosh as the solution to all the world's computer problems. On the other hand, i have a strong interest in seeing people happy with their machines; and while I have heard a great deal of praise from computer scientists who see the potential and like the DIRECTION the machine seems to point to, and a lesser amount from new users who are very pleased to poke around and find the fish and the frog and other pictures and play with fonts, I do not hear such hjappy noises from "the rest of us." It was not me who claimed there would be enormous piles of software by April. As to the "Developer" status, I hardly care; but again there were these exhortations given at shows and prior to the release of the machine, and lots of talk about it. People were encouraged to apply; later, they find, they should not have been. Okay by me. I would myself thnk that if Apple sold Macintoshes to every random Ph.D. who wanted to get one as a developer (and who had already persuaded the company he consults for to buy a Lisa for his project) then, given that they do not lose money on the discounted price anyway, they probably wouldn't go broke; and they might get themselves a few people out there who can deliver some software. Availability of applications software is going to make or break the machine; I cannot thnk that long delays in processing "developer applications" followed by turndowns is going to get the hobbyists and hackers writing up a storm. Sure: Apple will lose a little money to people just trying to get machines cheap; but it only takes one VisiCalc to make a product successful. At the moment that applications program has yet to be written. Maybe, just maybe, something else will catch up faster than Apple suspects.
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/11/84)
Date: Thursday, 10 May 1984 06:00:35 EDT
From: uw-beaver!Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.arpa
To: info-mac@sumex-aim.arpa
Subject: Re: Toolbox equates for peons
Warning: long flame (~==========)
It's been interesting watching the discussion on the net. From what I can
see, the people posting on this net fall into three groups:
(a) Certified/registered developers who can afford to buy Lisas
and expensive documentation, and who generally defend every move
that Apple makes,
(b) Hackers, students, etc. (like myself) who see the potential
in the machine and will occasionally acknowledge the warts, but
do not have money to spend on Lisas to go with our Macs, and
(c) People who have used computers, but have not used computers
that have mice and windows (I suspect that Jerry Pournelle fell
into this group until his Lilith machine arrived).
As someone else noted earlier, one problem with the Macintosh is that it
tends to overload the mouse. The computer that I work on (a Perq running
Accent) tends to use the mouse only where it actually provides an advantage.
The editor, although non-programmable, has the usual set of Emacs-like
commands, given from the keyboard. In addition you can use the mouse to
move anywhere in the file quickly and to select blocks of text that will
be copied or deleted. If you absolutely hate mice, there are alternate
keyboard commands that accomplish the same effect (more slowly). I tend
to use the keyboard when entering new text and a combination of keyboard
and mouse commands when editing an existing file.
People in group (c), though, are likely to take a look at the Macintosh
and conclude that its faults are characteristic of all systems with mice
and bit-mapped displays. Without a standard of comparison, they are not
likely to see the machine's potential (software tends towards the lowest
common denominator and the Mac hardware provides a fairly high "standard"
with the exception of memory size).
Of course, the machine's potential is not likely to be realized unless the
people in group (b) can easily write software for it. Randy Frank is just
plain wrong when he says that the best way to get software for the machine
is to limit support to a few "proven developers." The history of the Apple
II family should prove otherwise. (Oh, by the way, wasn't the Apple II
designed in a garage and Visicalc written by a couple of college students?
How many Apple IIs were sold because of Visicalc? Why is the Apple II still
selling after all this time? No, it couldn't possibly be the thousands of
peons who have written software for it. . . Why is the TI 99/4 dead? Could
it possibly have something to do with TI's attempts to prevent hobbyists and
hackers from getting inside the machine, especially during the first part of
its life?)
Way to go, Jerry. I may disagree quite violently with you on many points,
but you are absolutely right in this case.info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/15/84)
Date: 14 May 1984 06:38-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle <uw-beaver!POURNE@MIT-MC> Subject: Toolbox equates for peons To: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM, STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL, REICH@NYU-ACF1 In-Reply-To: Msg of 9 May 1984 04:27-EDT from Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE> [Last message on this 'subject'..... Ed.] Let us set the record straight. I know of three cases of applications for "Developer Status." All were refused. I probably would have turned down one of them myself. The other two seem highly qualified, and if I were hoping to get software out for my system I'd have thought them owrth encouraging. I am pleased to hear from STERNLIGHT that there are apparent exceptions to what I was persuaded was the rule. One reason I ask questions on the net, or even make statements, is to find things out; unlike Dvorak, who recently bragged in his San Francisco Chronical column that "a columnist doesn't have to check his facts" I tend to do some homework before I publish. My interpretation of the facts remains my own business. I don't apologize for being wrong; why should I? On this net, one says what one thinks is true; one will get corrections soon enough. Isn't taht its purpose? Without information sources, how the devil will I know. On the other hand, it remains a fact that Apple did sufficient exhoration of hobbyists and hackers to make it a reasonable expectation from all three I know of who applied that they'd be accepted. There was also considerable hoop-lah about how much software would be developed, adn when; it was, after all, a major selling point. My suspicion is that Apple originally meant to grant "Developer" status to a far larger number of people, then found sales much better than expected. They didn't need so many discounted machines sold to get them far out on the learning curve for manufacture, so they could charge full price for more of them than they'd thought. They chose to do that. This is not an unreasonable decision. Most corporations probably would make the same decision. Whether it was a WISE decision is another matter. I repeat: certainly Apple would lose little by granting developer status to every Ph.D. gainfully employed in the computer business who applies. They would lose little by granting Developer status to any hacker with a good track record, even if the track record consisted of work on programs in other people's shops rather than on their own. Sure: they'd lose, say, 1000 full price sales, at most. That's a million dollars. No small sum. But if within that thousand there was one VisiCalc... True: the VisiCalc people had no special developer status. no one had. But the Apple II was a prety open machine, much easier to understand thd interface to. Is the Macintosh that simple? Apparently not, else there would already be some of that promised flood. I don't know where sternlight gets the notion that I dislike Apple. I don't much care what company competes with IBM so long as somebody does it successfully. I'm a little weary of the breathless hype, and VERY weary of the Apple-polished corporate image of the Good Guys who are somehow differently motivated, but I can make that statement about other companies I know of. If the Mac had 500K of memory and a second drive, then it would be worth $2500 and more; alternatively, it's worth a fair bit less in its present state. That, of course, is merely an opinion, based on considerable experience with a number of machines (including a Mac). Now: if Sternlight's angry little tirade is answered, then I too am willing to pass on to another subject. I alrady was; that's why I "changed the subject" after he pointed out that I was mistaken in one point of information. I hadn't know that I was supposed to acknowledge that I'd lost some kind of debating point; however, I'm perfectly willing to make that acknowledgement if it makes him feel better. Last point: does anyone know WHY it is taking so long to write useful applications programs for the Mac? One story we heard: Apple intended to do it all in house. They had not intended even Microsoft basic. Then, very late last year, they discovered that they were not going to be producing any useful software (other than the ability to produce 9 page illuminated manuscripts) before the Mac was to be releeased. There was panic calls, including to Microsoft; which is why the Microsoft Basic implementation is such a kludge (14 K workspace!). Anyone know whether or not that's true? Next rumour: AT&T will sell Macs with 256K chips. I keep hearing that. It makes little sense to me. I have no confirmations, only multiple sources. Anyone know? The main question remains: if it's so easy to interface with the Mac and write software for it, why has none appeared? Is it being held for COMDEX; or is it harder to write than was supposed?